The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency. The review application was filed on 22 April 2025.
The review application was listed for a case conference. Notice of that listing was sent to the Applicant on 3 October 2025 by email, as nominated by the Applicant in the application form. The case conference was listed for 17 December 2025. That case conference proceeded, but the Applicant did not appear.
On 17 December 2025, the respondent filed a statement of position. The Applicant has not responded to that document. On 18 December 2025, as Ms Cute properly points out, the Applicant was given a warning letter in relation to the consequences that arise where there is a failure to attend Tribunal case events.
A further Tribunal case event was listed for 16 January 2026. The listing notice for that hearing was sent to the Applicant at the nominated email address, and I am satisfied the Applicant received proper notice of that case event. The Applicant did not appear at the case event on 16 January 2026.
I am satisfied that the hearing listed on 16 January 2026 was a Tribunal case event within the meaning of section 4 of the ART Act. Accordingly, the Applicant failed to appear at that Tribunal case event, and the discretion to dismiss the review application under section 99 of the ART Act was thereby enlivened. However, the review application was not dismissed at that time.
On 16 January 2026, a listing notice was sent listing the matter for hearing today. That listing notice specified that the hearing was in relation to a dismissal application, and I am therefore satisfied that it put the Applicant on notice that the respondent intended to seek dismissal of the review application in the event the Applicant failed to attend the hearing today.
I have reviewed the Tribunal's file. Having done so, I am satisfied that the hearing notice for today was sent to the Applicant's nominated email address. In those circumstances, I am further satisfied that the Applicant was given proper notice of the hearing.
Attempts were made to contact the Applicant shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing and again at the commencement of the hearing today. Those calls went unanswered and the Applicant did not attend or otherwise participate in the hearing.
[2]
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant has failed to appear at a Tribunal case event, as that phrase is defined in section 4 of the ART Act. That failure enlivens the discretionary power under section 99 of the ART Act to dismiss the review application following the non-appearance. It also enlivens the discretionary power under section 106(5) of the ART Act to determine the review application without a hearing, or to adjourn the case event to another occasion to give the Applicant another opportunity to attend.
In considering the appropriate course, I have had regard to the objectives of the Tribunal set out in section 9 of the ART Act. In circumstances where the Applicant has not engaged with the review application at all beyond filing it, and where it is unclear on what basis the Applicant contends that the delegate's decision was not the correct or preferable decision, I am satisfied that the appropriate course is to dismiss the review application pursuant to section 99 of the ART Act.
I note that dismissal of the review application under section 99 preserves the Applicant's ability to seek reinstatement of the review application. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that dismissal is both an efficient and a fair way to proceed in all the circumstances.