Millwood & Millwood [2026] FedCFamC2F 101 (30 January 2026)

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These proceedings concern an Application for Review ("the Review") filed by Ms Millwood ("the Applicant") on 17 December 2025. The Respondent is Mr Millwood ("the Respondent"). The Review challenges a decision of a Deputy Registrar made in Chambers on 15 December 2025 refusing an urgent listing of an Application in a Proceeding ("the Application") filed on 12 December 2025. The Application is currently listed for hearing at 9.30 am on 4 February 2026.
2. The Applicant seeks interim parenting orders - notwithstanding the absence of a s 60I certificate under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - arising from what the Applicant says are serious and immediate safety concerns associated with the Respondent's mental health, his access to firearms, and the consequent risk to the Applicant and the children, namely:
   • W born in 2015;
   • X born in 2016;
   • Y born in 2018; and
   • Z born in 2020.
3. The Applicant also seeks interim property orders to secure her access to matrimonial funds and to restrain the Respondent from further unilateral financial dealings. The Applicant contends that urgent interim property orders are required to meet the costs of caring for the children and to preserve the parties' asset pool pending final determination of the proceedings.

1. Pursuant to r 14.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 ("the Rules"), an Applicant may seek a review of an exercise of power by a Registrar by filing an Application for Review within 21 days after the decision of the Registrar is made.
2. Rule 14.07 of the Rules provides:

(1) A Court must hear an application for review of an exercise of power by a Senior Judicial Registrar or Judicial Registrar as an original hearing.

Note: in an original hearing, the Court rehears the whole matter and does not simply review the decision of the original Court.

(2) The Court may receive as evidence:

(a) any affidavit or exhibit tendered in the first hearing; or

(b) any further affidavit or exhibit; or

(c) the transcript (if any) of the first hearing; or

(d) if a transcript is not available - an affidavit about the evidence that was adduced at the first hearing, sworn by a person who was present at the first hearing.

1. Registrars of this Court have delegated powers pursuant to section 254 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ("the Act"). Examples of those powers are set out at s 254(2)(a) to (s) of the Act. The right to apply to the Court to review the exercise of a power of a Registrar is set out in s 256 of the Act.
2. In Myers & Myers [2011] FMCAfam 1104 at [87] Halligan FM (as he then was), considered three scenarios in which a Registrar can deal with the issue of allocating a "court date":

(a) Where the Registry proposes to fix a first Court date in the normal course and the applicant seeks a different date but one that would still allow for compliance with the relevant Rules fixing time limits referable to the application;

(b) Where the applicant seeks a first Court date that would not allow time for compliance with the relevant Rules fixing time limits referable to the application, but does not seek any variation of time limits fixed by the Rules; and

(c) Where the applicant seeks a first Court date that would not allow time for compliance with the relevant Rules fixing time limits referable to the application and seeks that any of those normal time limits fixed by the Rules be shortened or dispensed with.

1. His Honour observed that scenarios (a) and (b) do not involve the exercise of any power under the Rules or by the Court. Rather, they involve "purely administrative tasks performed by staff in the Court Registry in support of the functioning of the Court". Those scenarios are not amenable to review. Where, however, an applicant seeks a different first court date and seeks to shorten or dispense with the time limits fixed by the Rules, the Court has jurisdiction to review the exercise of the Registrar's power.
2. Halligan FM also set out some matters to take into account when considering a Review of a decision relating to the allocation of a listing date setting:
   • the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable basis for arguing for the substantive orders sought;
   • the applicant has demonstrated that, absent an urgent listing, the applicant will be prejudiced in relation to the substantive relief sought other than in ways common to other matters awaiting the Court's attention in the normal course;
   • the applicant has demonstrated that there has been no unreasonable or unexplained delay in approaching the Court; and
   • a judicial officer is available to hear the substantive application.
3. I intend to apply the approach of Halligan FM to assist with the determination of this case.

1. This Review seeks to bring forward the allocated Court date of 4 February 2026. As recently observed in Dyne & Dyne [2021] FedCFamC1F 96 at [11] where a review application concerns a listing decision, the review's sole purpose is to determine the pending interim disputes hearing date.

Is the Review clearly one where an Applicant seeks a different first Court date and seeks that the normal time limits fixed by the Rules be shortened or dispensed with, such that the Court has jurisdiction to review the Registrar's power?

1. The Application was filed on 12 December 2026. There is no evidence as to when the Application was served. I note, however, that the Respondent filed a Notice of Address for Service on 18 December 2025. Under Rule 2.18(2) of the Rules, the Respondent had 28 days from service to file responding documents ("the period"), and whether service occurred on 18 or 19 December 2025 the Respondent had until mid-January 2026 to file responding documents. The Application does not seek to shorten or dispense with the period and as of 30 January 2026 - the date of the Review hearing - 49 days have elapsed since the Application was filed and, on the imputed facts, approximately 44 days since the Application was served. The time for the Respondent to file documents has clearly passed.
2. For that reason, the decision of the Deputy Registrar is not reviewable. The time for filing documents fixed by the Rules could not, in these circumstances, be shortened or dispensed with, even if the Application had sought the same. As Halligan FM observed in Myers & Myers [2011] FMCAfam 1104 at [87], in such a scenario the Registrar performs a "purely administrative" function by refusing an urgent listing and maintaining the hearing date initially allocated by the registry.

1. For the reasons set out above, the Review must be dismissed, and so I Order. I note that the first listing before the Registrar is now only days away.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Turnbull.