1. The Respondent objected to the stay application in written submissions dated 3 November 2025.
2. An interlocutory hearing was convened on 26 November 2025. The Respondent was represented at that hearing by Ms Baggett, Mills Oakley Lawyers. The Applicant was represented by his mother and plan nominee, Ms Judy Robinson.
3. For the reasons that follow the application to stay the operation of the reviewable decision is refused.

1. The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) establishes this Tribunal and permits people to apply for independent merit review of reviewable decisions.[1]
2. Pending final determination, the Tribunal's has the power to make a stay order. This power is found in subsection 32 of the ART Act.
3. Subsection 32(1) of the ART Act provides that making an application to the Tribunal generally does not affect the operation of the decision or the taking action to implement the decision.
4. Subsection 32(2) of the ART Act provides an exception to this general rule. Upon application by a party to a proceeding the Tribunal may make an order staying the decision, or the operation or implementation of a decision, if the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.
5. Before making such a decision, subsection 32(7) of the ART Act states that the Tribunal must not make a stay decision unless the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and the Tribunal has taken into account the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision.
6. Subsection 32(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) states that a participant of the NDIS must have a plan facilitated by the CEO.
7. Section 33 of the NDIS Act dictates the matters that must be included in a participant's plan. Subsection 33(2) states that a participant's plan must include a statement of participant supports.
8. The CEO, at a person's request or on her own initiative, can vary a participant's plan pursuant to section 47A of the NDIS Act. Relevant to this application, a variation to general supports that will be provided under the plan is also permissible.[2]
9. Further, the CEO may also, either at a person's request or on her own initiative, reassess a participant's plan pursuant to section 48 of the NDIS Act. The outcome of the reassessment can be to vary a participant's plan pursuant to subsection 47A(1), or prepare a new plan and approve a statement of participant supports in the new plan pursuant to paragraph 48(7)(b).
10. Section 37 of the NDIS Act states that a new plan comes into effect when the CEO has received the participant's statement of goals and aspirations and has approved the statement of participant supports. Paragraph 37(3)(a) states that a previous plan ceases to have effect when the plan is replaced by another plan. Subsection 37(4) states that for the purposes of paragraph 37(3)(a), if a plan (the replacement plan) comes into effect for a participant while another plan is in effect, the other plan is replaced by the replacement plan.
11. A person who is directly affected by a decision made by the CEO may request a review of the decision. Section 99 of the NDIS Act sets down the decisions that are reviewable by the CEO. Reviewable decisions under the NDIS Act include a decision to approve a statement of participant supports in a participant's plan, by operation of subsection 99(1) Item 4.
12. Subsection 100(6) of the NDIS Act states that a reviewer of a decision may confirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision.
13. Subsection 103(1) of the NDIS Act states that an application can be made to this Tribunal for review of decisions that are made under subsection 100(6) of the Act.

1. The mother's submissions can be summarised as follows. Her son has lived alone in supported accommodation for 10 years. He is happy there. He does not want to live with another person. When he shared a home in the past he was the victim of violence and his behaviours of concern escalated. If he is forced to live with another person he will either be again a victim of violence or will act out aggressively. In any event, his current accommodation only has two bedrooms; the second bedroom is very small and his overnight support worker uses that room. She simply wants to stay the current statement of participant supports and revert to the June statement of participant supports to ensure her son has adequate overnight support until such time that the application before the Tribunal can be determined.
2. The Respondent submits that the stay application cannot achieve the outcome sought. This is because, by operation of subsection 37(3) of the NDIS Act, the June 2025 plan ceased upon the creation of a new plan in July 2025, which included the July statement of participant supports. To grant a stay in this case would leave the Applicant without any supports which, it was submitted, would be an unsatisfactory outcome for the Applicant. The Respondent relied on Dunn and National Disability Insurance Agency[3] and Mr Alex Anderson, by his Plan Nominee and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency.[4] Further, it was submitted that if the Tribunal did grant the stay in the terms sought, there would be nothing prohibiting the Applicant from then withdrawing the application and then continuing to receive the support in dispute.

1. I am satisfied that the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. I have also considered the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision, including Ms Robinson.
2. In the matter GAP-AAA and GAP-AAB; Child Support Registrar[5] Kyrou J, the President of the Tribunal, set down the relevant principles when considering a stay application in respect to subsection 127(1) of the ART Act (where a party can seek a stay order in guidance and appeal panel decisions). Subsection 127(1) largely mirrors the provisions subsection 33(2) of the ART Act. It is uncontroversial that the same principles apply when considering a stay application pursuant to subsection 33(2) of the ART Act.
3. Kyrou J stated that a precondition to the exercise of the discretion to grant a stay is evidence that the effectiveness of the review to be conducted would be adversely affected or the party seeking the stay would suffer "irreversible prejudice" if a stay were not granted.[6] This must be balanced against any prejudice to the party opposing the stay.[7] These considerations must then be weighed, and a conclusion reached, based on what the interests of justice require in the case.[8] In considering this application I adopt these principles.
4. Subsection 32(1) of the ART Act provides that a reviewable decision is to be implemented, even though an application is before the Tribunal. This reflects the public interest in the Tribunal's usual review process being allowed to unfold, including the opportunity for parties to adduce further evidence and being given the opportunity to test evidence at hearing.
5. I find that the public interest weighs in favour of refusing the stay application.
6. The Applicant's mother confirmed that the Applicant continues to receive overnight care. The Respondent indicated awareness that overnight care at a ratio of 1:1 continues to be provided. Accepting these submissions, I am not of the view that the Applicant would suffer irreversible prejudice if a stay were not granted. Any hardship to the Applicant is best addressed by expediting this matter to hearing.
7. I am also not persuaded that there would be irreversible prejudice to the Respondent should I grant the stay; certainly, no such submissions were made on behalf of the Respondent. This weighs in favour of granting the stay application.
8. I am satisfied that the Applicant's case has reasonable prospects of success. This weighs in favour of granting the application.
9. However, I am not persuaded that a granting of the stay would ensure the effectiveness of the review before this Tribunal or that in not granting the stay the application would be rendered nugatory. Certainly, no compelling arguments were presented to suggest that this was the case. These considerations also weigh in favour of refusing the stay application.
10. On balance, I have determined that it is not desirable to issue an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision under review pursuant to subsection 32(2) of the ART Act.
11. The application to stay the operation of the reviewable decision is refused.

[1] As set down in section 12 of the ART Act.

[2] Paragraph 47A(1A)(ag) of the NDIS Act.

[3] [2022] AATA 4061.

[4] (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1551.

[5] (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2024] ARTA 1.