What is the test for determining whether there was connivance between the parties in the context of the definition of a party to a marriage contract?

In Ross v. Ross (1869) L.R. 1 P. 734, at 737, 38 L.J. Mat 49, it is said: The court is bound to take a similar course in all cases of this nature for nothing would lead to greater injustice than to determine them upon technical definitions. What a man writes is, no doubt, stronger than what he says. What he does by deed is of greater stability and force in law than what he does by parol, and the contents of any deed which he has executed should be closely scanned. But, allowing all this it is still proper to let in as much light as possible by evidence as to his intention, and the court, when the whole matter is placed before it, ought not to determine that there was connivance, unless it sees its way very clearly to the conclusion that it was the intention of the parties to connive.