Application for leave — leave to appeal — interlocutory hearing — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 49 & 143 — Family Court Act 1980, s 12A — Family Court Rules 2002, RR 158 & 175D — BLH v MNL [2014] NZHC 194 — T v E FC Auckland FAM-2007-004-2481, 2 July 2008 — Malone v Auckland Family Court [2014] NZHC 1290 — K v K [2019] NZFLR 241 — J v P [2013] NZHC 557 — R v Gwaze [2010] NZSC 52 — Brock v Norton [2016] NZSC 468. The parties were the parents of two young children, and had been engaged in prolonged proceedings over the children's care and guardianship arrangements. In a previous decision the Court had decided to admit as evidence sections of an affidavit sworn by the parties' adult son; and had declined parts of an application for a further interim parenting order. Specifically the Court had declined to increase the applicant's care of the children from six to seven nights per fortnight, or to alternatively increase his care of the children during school holidays. In the present application the applicant father sought the Court's leave to appeal these rulings to the High Court. On the issue of increased care, the Court found that it would not be in the best interests of the children, or in the best interests of justice, to allow the appeal. To allow further litigation would risk more disruption to the children's lives, and could also encourage the parties to keep coming back to Court contrary to the principle of finality of litigation. On the admissibility of the affidavit, the Court observed that it was a question of legal importance whether the Court had a discretion to exclude admissible evidence, if hearing that evidence would be contrary to the welfare and best interests of the children. The evidence in the affidavit did have the potential to harm the welfare and best interests of the children because it could further divide the family. The Court granted leave to appeal on this issue. Judgment Date: 27 May 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *