Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) s101, 102

Buchanan and NDIA (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 2410

JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2025] ARTA 464

Unger and NDIA (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 783

1. On 5 December 2024 Ms Buchanan applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision (dated 21 November 2024) made by a delegate of the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Agency) affirming an earlier decision (dated 11 July 2024) that Ms Buchanan did not meet the access criteria in section 22 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act). I will refer to Ms Buchanan's Tribunal application as 'the substantive application'.
2. On 3 October 2025 the respondent filed with the Tribunal and the applicant an application with supporting submissions seeking the summary dismissal of the substantive application pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act).
3. Directions seeking responding submissions from the applicant were made and submissions received from the applicant on 16 October 2025, amended and updated on 17 October 2025.
4. The respondent sought to provide further written submissions in response (by email dated 16 October 2025) to which the applicant objected (by email dated 16 October 2025). An email from the respondent was received on 24 October 2025 (at the request of the applicant) indicating the scope of the further points it would raise at hearing.
5. The Tribunal listed the matter for hearing on 31 October 2025 so both parties had a further opportunity to make relevant submissions on the dismissal application. That hearing proceeded as listed.
6. The Tribunal handed down its decision with reasons on 12 November 2025. The substantive application was dismissed pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the ART Act on the basis the substantive application had no reasonable prospect of success. This decision was made after consideration of the merits of the substantive application.
7. By email dated 17 November 2025 the applicant filed an application for re-instatement of the substantive application, pursuant to section 102 of the ART Act, submitting the application had been dismissed in error. Submissions in support of this application were provided on this date, amended on 19 November 2025.
8. In conjunction with the decision in Buchanan and NDIA[1] and for the reasons set out below the Tribunal dismisses the application for re-instatement with the result the decision to dismiss the substantive application remains in effect.

1. Section 102 of the ART Act is in the following form:

(1) This section applies if the Tribunal dismisses an application.

Note: An application may be dismissed in specified circumstances (see sections 20, 84, and 96 to 101). In addition, an application is taken to have been dismissed if the applicant withdraws it (see section 95).

(2) If the Tribunal considers that the application was dismissed in error, the Tribunal may on its own initiative reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

(3) Despite subsection (2), the Tribunal must not reinstate an application under subsection (2) if the application was dismissed under section 96 (Tribunal may dismiss application if parties consent).

(4) Despite subsection (2), if more than 28 days have passed since an application was dismissed, the Tribunal must not reinstate the application under subsection (2) unless the Tribunal is satisfied that special circumstances justify reinstating the application.

Party may apply for reinstatement if application dismissed in error

(5) A party to the proceeding in relation to the application may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application on the ground of error within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed (or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows).

(6) If a party applies under subsection (5) and the Tribunal considers that the application was dismissed in error, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Parties can apply for reinstatement in other specified circumstances

(a) Section 95 (applicant may withdraw application); or

(b) Section 99 (Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear); or

(c) Section 100 (Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant fails to comply with order etc);

a party to the proceeding in relation to the application may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed (or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows).

(8) However, the applicant cannot apply if the application is dismissed under section 95 (applicant may withdraw application).

(9) If a party applies under subsection (7) and the Tribunal considers it appropriate to reinstate the application, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

1. I have considered the applicant's application for reinstatement. This has been made under section 102(5) of the ART Act. I am satisfied that neither section 102(2) nor section 102(7) of the ART Act apply. The application was made within 28 days of notification of the decision to dismiss.
2. I am satisfied that section 102(6) establishes the power to reinstate an application as a discretion available to the Tribunal in circumstances in which the Tribunal 'considers that the application was dismissed in error'.
3. In the matter of JTBJ and Secretrary, Department of Social Services (Social Security) [2025] ARTA 464 (JTBJ) Kyrou J considered what types of error might fall within section 102(6) of the ART Act by reference to Federal Court authority on the subject.[2] Although the authorities relied on were directed at the similar provision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the wording in that provision is sufficiently similar to the ART Act to make the Courts' consideration applicable to this situation.
4. The Courts have considered that 'errors' (in relation to this provision) included administrative errors on the part of the Tribunal[3] but were not confined only to such errors.[4] The relevant error may be on the part of another party, not just the Tribunal, such as where a representative wrongly consents to a dismissal.[5]
5. In Goldie it was held that the words of the Act did not place any limitation or qualification on the word 'error' and that all that was required was that 'the Tribunal had dismissed an application' and 'the act of dismissal was attended with error'.[6]
6. It was common ground, however, that the relevant dismissal must have taken place without the Tribunal having reviewed the merits of the decision under review.[7] Rather such dismissal must have been an exercise of the Tribunal's 'default jurisdiction'.
7. The discretion to reinstate was deemed not to be a defacto appeal procedure, but a means of providing 'a relatively informal method of bringing a matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration with a view to it being considered on the merits'.[8]
8. In the matter of Katterns v Comcare[9] (Katterns) Dowsett J determined that a decision of the Tribunal to dismiss a matter (for failure to comply with directions) without giving prior notice of the Tribunal's intention was a procedural error which enlivened the discretion to reinstate.

1. In this matter I am satisfied that the applicant was given notice of the respondent's application for dismissal of the substantive application pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the ART Act.
2. It was contended by the respondent, that as a matter of law, the applicant's substantive application had no reasonable prospect of success.
3. I am satisfied that both parties were given the opportunity to provide both written and oral submissions in relation to the respondent's application, and of the Tribunal's intention to make a decision in relation to that application.
4. A final hearing was held on 31 October 2025 at which both parties put their positions on the substantive application so that the Tribunal might reach a conclusion about whether that application had any prospect of success.
5. The Tribunal's decision, after due consideration of the parties' submissions, was that it did not.[10]
6. The respondent's application for dismissal was granted pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the ART Act.
7. I consider the dismissal was not an exercise of the Tribunal's default dismissal jurisdiction but rather a conclusion reached after full consideration of the merits of the decision under review and of the applicant's submissions as to why that decision was wrong.
8. I am not satisfied the dismissal decision is attended with any 'error' within the meaning of section 102(6) of the ART Act.
9. To the extent the applicant contends there was legal error or unreasonableness in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to dismiss, she retains appeal rights which may be pursued in the usual course. It is not appropriate that the reinstatement process be utilised for that purpose.

1. The Applicant's request for reinstatement pursuant to section 102(6) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) is refused.

[1] Buchanan and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2410

[3] Relying on obiter in the decision in Brehoi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) FCA 772 (Brehoi)

[4] Relying on the decision in Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 367 (Goldie)

[6] Goldie [29] as referenced in JTBJ at [31]

[7] Goldie [67] as referenced in JTBJ at [32]

[8] Carr J in Goldie [77] as referenced in JTBJ at [33]

[9] [2002] FCA 1366 referenced in JTBJ at [36]

[10] Buchanan and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2410