Abstract
The ‘any evidence’ rule provides judicial discretion to admit evidence in the Family Court that would otherwise be inadmissible. Although the rule has frequently been criticised, its operation and ongoing value have not been closely examined. In its recently-reformed iteration, the ‘any evidence’ rule embodies and demands a rigorous approach to evidentiary issues in the Family Court, premised on fundamental Evidence Act principles of relevance, probative value and prejudicial effect. In this first comprehensive review of the New Zealand family law ‘any evidence’ rule, based on an analysis of post-reform case law, we argue that the rule should be repealed. It is unnecessary, other than in relation to the special issue of children’s hearsay, and in practice contributes to a lax approach to the admission of evidence in the Family Court. We conclude by setting out recommendations for reformed law and practice, and directing users towards a more principled approach to family law evidence in the meantime.