U is for Urgency – A-Z of Family Law

Urgent matters often come before the Court in family law at the request of one party. It is then the Court’s role to adjudicate whether or not the issues at hand are truly urgent enough to warrant the proceedings ‘skipping the queue’ or receiving such other special treatment as may be requested by the applicant. This could be ex parte orders (where the other party is not heard on an issue), an urgent listing for an interim hearing, or exemptions to traditional service.

Naturally, what an applicant considers to be urgent will not always be supported by the Court. Urgent matters will invariably involve immediate risks to safety or property, such as a child whose arrangements at that point in time require consideration, or an asset that, for whatever reason, requires an injunction in relation to its use.

The decision of Judge Mansfield in Nakai & Nakai [2025] FedCFamC2F 87 in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia involved an urgent application by the applicant, seeking parenting orders; specifically, a listing before Justice Carew. The application was in fact an application for review, stemming from the decision of a duty registrar of the Court who did not grant an urgent listing at the time the applicant father first filed.

The relevant facts were as follows:

• Three children were involved, being 5, 10 and 12 years old respectively.
• A 6-day hearing was held before Justice Carew in July & August 2024. Final orders were subsequently made.
• Changeover, in accordance with these orders, was impacted soon after the orders began to be implemented due to the named professional supervision service being unable to continue, and the parties being unable to agree on an alternative.
• At the time of filing, the applicant father had not spent time with the children for 2.5 months. There was no prospect of time recommencing.

After determining that the duty registrar’s decision was capable of review ([8]-[12]), Judge Mansfield considered the applicant father’s case itself.

It was concluded that:

• The first return date set down by the duty registrar, being around 2 months after filing, was “relatively soon in the overall scheme of the history of this matter and relative to other matters awaiting the Court’s attention” [15].
• The request for a listing before Justice Carew would have required a transfer to Division One, as the majority of proceedings will commence in Division Two by default. There was minimal basis for doing so, pursuant to the relevant legislation.

Judge Mansfield dismissed the applicant father’s application for review.

Notably, the decision of Lombardi & Rider [2021] FedCFamC2F 57 was referred to with support by Judge Mansfield, particularly the following from Lombardi [32]-[33]:

Registrars … deal with applications for abridgments and urgent listings and are best placed to allocate listings having regard to urgency considerations and the overall business of the Court. The Court will accord priority to cases depending on the urgency that presents itself on a case by case basis by carefully weighing competing considerations such as the factual basis for the urgency asserted, including any issues of safety or risk, and the delay in bringing an application.

… resources must be allocated efficiently and effectively, and where many parties may consider their application to be urgent for them.

When seeking urgency, consider:

1. Clearly articulating to the Court what the urgent issues are, and the risks that may arise if not addressed urgently.
2. Including orders ‘in the alternative’ should the primary relief not be made.
3. Preparing clients for the likelihood that urgency will not be granted, as it is the exception rather than the rule.