Whether leave was required — statutory interpretation — Care of Children Act 2004, s 139A — Family Courts Rules 2002, rr 416Z, 175D and 177. Two issues were determined: whether leave was required for the father to make an application for variation of an existing parenting order, and whether a final parenting order of 12 April 2016 overtook that application made 16 February 2016. The first issue required the precise legal meanings of "final direction" and "order" under s 139A to be determined. The definitions of these words would impact on whether the proceedings had been finally determined, and whether therefore leave would be required. This question was answered in the father's favour after consideration of the FCRs, and as a final direction or order had not been given in previous proceedings, leave was not required under s 139A. Regarding the second issue, it was determined that the final parenting order of 12 April 2016 had not overtaken the application of 16 February 2016. The 12 April 2016 order, although final, had to be read in light of a memorandum signed by the parties which recorded that final agreement had not been reached for the issue of shared care of the child. The Court minutes and leave provision contained in both the draft and final parenting orders supported this interpretation. Judgment Date: 21 November 2016. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *