Assistance with Daily Life (support worker assistance with personal tasks such as house and yard work)

Assistance with social economic and community participation (support worker assistance to engage in community, social, recreational or economic activities)

Consumables (low-cost assistive technology and minor repairs thereto)

Psychologist, occupational therapist and speech therapist

1. The Tribunal's role in this review is to reach its own conclusion as to whether the reviewable decision that the proposed bathroom modifications are not a reasonable and necessary support is the correct and preferable decision.[9] This involves a re-assessment of the evidence that was before the delegate of the Respondent when the reviewable decision was made as well as an assessment of the additional documentary evidence and witness evidence that was before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing.[10] Section 34(1) of the NDIS Act provides that for the purposes of specifying the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded in a SOPS, the Respondent must be "satisfied" of each of the matters set out in that section in relation to the funding of each such support. In this review, the Tribunal must also be so satisfied. This is a state of positive satisfaction or relative certainty which must be attained in relation to each criterion specifically.[11] Therefore, while neither the Applicant nor the Respondent bear any formal onus of proof, the Applicant does bear the practical onus of placing before the Tribunal, or pointing to material before the Tribunal, that can persuade it that the supports in dispute (the proposed bathroom modifications) are reasonable and necessary.[12]

1. The hearing was held on 5 and 6 November 2025 by video. The Applicant's husband represented the Applicant. The Respondent was represented by Ms Douglas-Baker of Counsel and she was instructed by Moray & Agnew Lawyers. The documents provided to the Tribunal to assist with its determination were contained in the Joint Tender Bundle (JTB) pages 1 to 436. The following witnesses gave evidence under affirmation at the hearing:
   • The Applicant.
   • Mr Castrucci, Occupational Therapist.
   • Mr Mate, Occupational Therapist.

1. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was established under the NDIS Act. Its objectives are set out in s 3 and its general principles guiding actions taken under the NDIS Act are set out in s 4. A participant's plan must include a SOPS, approved in accordance with s 33 of the NDIS Act, and any rules made under the NDIS Act.
2. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Amendment Act) came into force on 3 October 2024, changing several key provisions. These amendments apply to the Applicant's SOPS and must be considered by the Tribunal.[13]
3. Section 34(1) of the NDIS Act now relevantly states:

(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:

(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);

(a) the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant's statement of goals and aspirations;

(b) the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant's social and economic participation;

(c) the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;

(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;

(e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;

(f) the support is an NDIS support for the participant.

(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs (1)(aa) to (f).

1. The Tribunal must be positively satisfied about each of the matters set out in s 34(1) of the NDIS Act.[14]
2. Under s 209(1) of the Act, the Minister may make rules prescribing certain matters including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) (the Supports Rules). Relevantly, the Support Rules provide:

3.1 In deciding whether the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support, the CEO is to consider the following matters:

(a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost;

(b) whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long-term benefit to, the participant;

(c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);

(d) for supports that involve the provision of equipment or modifications:

(i) the comparative cost of purchasing or leasing the equipment or modifications; and

(ii) whether there are any expected changes in technology or the participant's circumstances in the short-term that would make it inappropriate to fund the equipment or modifications;

(e) Whether the cost of the support is comparable to the cost of supports of the same kind that are provided in the area in which the participant resides;

(f) whether the support will increase the participant's independence and reduce the participant's need for other kinds of supports (for example, some home modifications may reduce a participant's need for home care).

Effective and beneficial and current good practice

3.2 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to consider the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like circumstances. That evidence may include:

(a) published and referred literature and any consensus of expert opinion;

(b) the lived experience of the participant or their carers; or

(c) anything the Agency has learnt through delivery of the NDIS.

3.3 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to take into account, and if necessary seek, expert opinion.

3.4 in deciding whether funding or provision of the support takes account of what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide, the CEO is to consider the following matters:

(i) the extent of any risks to the well-being of the participant arising from the participant's reliance on the support of family members, carers, informal networks and the community:

(ii) the suitability of family members, carers, informal networks and the community to provide the supports that the participant requires, including such factors as:

• (A) the age and capacity of the participant's family members and carers, including the extent to which family and community supports are available to sustain them in their caring role; and
• (B) the intensity and type of support that is required and whether it is age and gender appropriate for a particular family member or parents to be providing that care; and
• (C) the extent of any risks to the long term well-being of any of the family members or carers...

(iii) the extent to which informal supports contribute to or reduce a participants level of independence and other outcomes;

(c) for all participants-the desirability of supporting and developing the potential contributions of informal supports and networks within their communities.

1. Section 33(5) prescribes what is required of the Respondent when approving a SOPS:

(5) In deciding whether or not to approve a statement of participant supports under subsection (2), the CEO must:

(a) have regard to the participant's statement of goals and aspirations; and

(b) have regard to relevant assessments conducted in relation to the participant; and

(c) be satisfied as mentioned in section 34 in relation to the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded and the general supports that will be provided; and

(d) apply the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules (if any) made for the purposes of s 35; and

(e) have regard to the principle that a participant should manage his or her plan to the extent that he or she wishes to do so; and

(f) have regard to the operation and effectiveness of any previous plans of the participant; and

(g) have regard to whether section 46 (acquittal of NDIS amounts) was complied with in relation to any previous plan for the participant.

1. The NDIS Operational Guidelines are also relevant to making decisions in accordance with the NDIS Act. Operational Guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[15]

1. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the bathroom modifications requested by the Applicant meet the reasonable and necessary criteria under s34(1) of the NDIS Act.

1. According to the report prepared by Mr Mate, Occupational Therapist, the Applicant lives with her husband and two children in a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom single-storey brick home on a concrete slab. The Applicant has her own bedroom with an ensuite bathroom. This is the bathroom that the Applicant seeks to have modified.
2. At the Applicant's request, Mr Daniel Castrucci, Occupational Therapist, prepared a Complex Home Modification report dated 16 February 2024. In that report he makes recommendations in relation to proposed modifications to the Applicant's bathroom that he considers will be of benefit to her.[16]
3. It is not entirely clear what the total cost of the proposed bathroom modifications would be. There is a Bathroom Concept Review dated 17 September 2025, prepared by Allen Kong Architect[17] which states that the probable cost of the proposed bathroom modifications is between $95,000-$115,000[18] because the existing building is on a waffle slab and alteration to that slab will require documentation from a Structural Engineer and require a building permit to ensure the structural integrity of the slab is not compromised.[19] If plumbing is relocated, the engineering requires the slab to be cut out entirely and then reinstated after the plumbing has been re-laid. This allows the floor to be set down so that a graded stepless shower can be fitted.[20] There is also a recent quote from Buildsmart Group dated 28 August 2025, valid for 60 days, in the sum of $65,807.79.[21] However, that quote makes no mention of any engineering involvement. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that whether the cost of the proposed bathroom modifications is $65,000 or $115,000, it is a significant expense.

4. The Applicant gave evidence in a clear and articulate manner. She was well groomed. She was seated in her power wheelchair at a desk in her bedroom. She did not use the headrest. Despite the Tribunal offering the Applicant the opportunity to request breaks as needed, she required limited breaks. In her evidence she said that she was first diagnosed with ME/CFS in 2007 and with POTS in 2008. She is married and lives with her husband and her two children (born 2015 and 2021). The Applicant was first granted access to the NDIS in 2022. Prior to that she had worked in various roles in the education industry. She taught students in primary school, secondary school and TAFE. She has a Bachelor of Education. She is not currently employed.
5. Prior to 2007, the Applicant led a very busy and active life. She played netball, attended the gym and held 4-5 casual jobs. She successfully completed year 12 and her university degree. She drove and attended social functions. From 2008, the Applicant experienced 'waves' in the severity of her symptomology. In 2015, she gave birth to her first child. In 2021 she gave birth to her second child. After this birth the severity of her ME/CFS and POTS increased. Now, the Applicant finds it very difficult to move. She has to conserve energy so that she can perform basic tasks. She sits or lays down for most of the day. She mobilises using her power wheelchair which she obtained in 2023.
6. Between the birth of her two children she mobilised using a manual wheelchair, pushed by another person, outside of the home and with a walking frame and walking stick in the home. After the birth of her second child in 2021, she was bedridden for six weeks and she ceased driving. She underwent a lot of medical testing and examinations, but no answers were given to explain the progress of her symptoms.
7. In cross examination the Applicant acknowledged that in her first and second plans dated 27 September 2023 and 9 October 2023 funding was provided for physiotherapy to build muscle strength and flexibility and that this was recommended by her Occupational Therapist at the time. The Applicant gave evidence that she was not doing physiotherapy at the current time and that she had been advised not to do any exercise. The Applicant said that she considered exercise to be different to moving her limbs to build muscle strength and flexibility. She agreed that her Occupational Therapist had recommended physiotherapy but made no mention of doing any exercise. She said that her Cardiologist advised her that people who has ME/CFS and POTS were not in a position to do any exercise. She said that exercise causes Post Exertional Malaise (PEM) which puts her into a 'crash' and in a worse state than she is currently in.
8. The Applicant described her typical day as waking between 10-10:30am . Her husband or a support worker will bring her breakfast in bed. She stays in bed until about 2pm. She has a laptop and desk computer set up in her bedroom. She often lays in bed scrolling on her phone.
9. The Applicant's husband works in IT and works from home five days per week. He does not have formal start and finish times. He gets up between 7:30-8am he gets the children ready and drives them to preschool and school. He is home again by 9:30am. He then picks them up at 2pm and 3:30pm.
10. The Applicant's husband gets her clothes out of her wardrobe and lays them on her bed. When she gets up around 2pm she puts them on. She then mobilises around the home in her power wheelchair. She goes into each room and determines the things that need to be done. For example, she looks in the pantry and sees what items need to be purchased and she looks in the children's rooms to see if they need tidying. She then gives instructions via text to the support worker to perform various household tasks including laundry, washing dishes, errands, making her lunch and occasionally attending to some of the Applicant's grooming.
11. The Applicant mobilises around the home using her power wheelchair. She has the seat slightly reclined to 100° to 110°. She places her head in the head rest for support. The footrests are elevated so that her legs are raised. It can tilt forward which helps her reach and it can be raised so she is in a supported standing position. It has a 30cm x 30cm glove box and a side pocket to place items in. She uses a foldable single point walking stick to transfer from her power wheelchair to the toilet and to her shower chair. She manoeuvres her power wheelchair into the bathroom and then uses the walking stick to walk approximately 4 steps to transfer to the toilet or to the shower chair. When she goes out in the car, she puts the walking stick in the footwell of the car to assist with transfers to and from her power wheelchair. She no longer uses a manual wheelchair or walking frame.
12. The Applicant moved into her current single storey home which has four bedrooms and three bathrooms in 2017. From 2017 until 2023 when she obtained her power wheelchair, she used a walking stick to mobilise and get to the toilet and shower. She now uses her power wheelchair and a walking stick to access the toilet and shower. The shower chair has a swivel feature, but she only uses that when rinsing her hair and getting out of that chair.
13. The Applicant seeks funding for the bathroom modifications because she wants to eliminate all step movements to conserve her energy. She has difficulty navigating the limited space in her current bathroom in her power wheelchair. She has to sit side on to the vanity and as a result of the placement of her shower chair in the shower recess, it causes drainage issues.
14. The Applicant estimated that throughout the course of an average day and night she needs to access the toilet about 6 times. She showers once a week. In the Applicant's current bathroom layout, she manoeuvres her power wheelchair into the bathroom. She then uses a single point walking stick to move 4 steps to the toilet. She then pivots 180° and transfers onto the toilet seat. She reverses this process to get back into her power wheelchair. She accesses the shower chair that is set up in her shower recess in the same way. The Applicant claims that an additional problem with the shower set up is that the position of the shower chair water from the shower does not drain properly and spreads to the carpet in her walk-in wardrobe. She says that this does not occur when her husband uses the shower because he does not use the shower chair. The Applicant can access her existing walk-in wardrobe, with difficulty. The proposed modifications will make access easier.
15. With respect to lower cost alternatives, the Applicant makes the following comments in her response to the statement of issues.[22]
    • perching stool - this is another piece of equipment that will cause further ME/CFS and POTS symptoms by needing to transfer from a seated position to another seated position. The lack of mobility and storage flexibility would introduce additional barriers to independence. The perching stool is not on wheels so it cannot be easily pushed by the Applicant, and it will create more space issues. As a result of the already tight footprint in front of the vanity, a support worker or the Applicant's husband will need to take it in and out of the area. This impacts the Applicant by not allowing her the flexibility as to when she can wash her face, brush her teeth, apply make-up or complete other tasks at the vanity as she will need to rely on someone else to prepare the area for her.
    • Wall hung vanity - there are no vanities long enough on the Australian market to fit the current space and it is unclear whether a wall hung vanity would be high enough and deep enough to accommodate the Applicant's wheelchair. It does not address the Applicant's needs to manoeuvre her wheelchair in the space causing further damage to nearby walls and the wheelchair. There would be a lack of storage space, extensive damage to the walls on either side of the current vanity, the tiled splash back as well as the mirrors and there are no spare tiles available to be laid where the current vanity is for consistency with design.
    • Weighted shower curtain - this is likely to exacerbate the Applicant's existing temperature dysregulation. It will trap steam, creating extra humidity within the shower space. Opening and closing a weighted shower curtain will use energy and cause extra PEM. Due to the location of where it would be positioned the Applicant could not reach it from her shower chair which would introduce a falls risk as a result of having to stand on slippery tiles to open the curtain after showering. The Applicant will need assistance to open and close the weighted shower curtain to prevent PEM and one of the many reasons for the bathroom modification is for the Applicant to become more independent long-term and lessen the financial load of having support workers when it comes to personal care.

1. Ms Bowkett is an Occupational Therapist. She conducted a Home Modifications Assessment between 17 July 2023 and 23 October 2023. She prepared a report dated 23 October 2023[23], in which she stated that due to the Applicant's conditions of ME/CFS and POTS, she experiences PEM. The Applicant reported that she is often bedbound due to the high levels of delayed fatigue she experiences after completion of a daily activity such as accessing the community, attending to personal care tasks and socialising. It may take the Applicant several days of resting before returning to her baseline. In her report Ms Bowkett says that the Applicant is largely wheelchair dependent but has the ability to complete step transfers with use of a single point stick for balance. Ms Bowkett determined that the Applicant required flooring modifications to replace carpet with laminate due to property damage relating to use of her power wheelchair. The respondent has funded these flooring modifications.[24]
2. In her report, Ms Bowkett, makes the following observations:
   • The Applicant can complete step/pivot transfers from her powered wheelchair to the desired surface using a single point stick and occasional physical support (i.e. toilet, shower chair). Transfers are more effortful for the Applicant in the bathroom space due to reduced circulation space impacting on accessibility and safety.[25]
   • The Applicant is continent. She is required to park her powered wheelchair outside of the toilet door and take approximately 4 steps to the toilet with use of her single point stick. The Applicant reports that she feels unsafe and unsteady during this transfer due to reduced strength and endurance. Whilst sitting, she holds the walking stick in front of her to support her weight.[26]
   • The Applicant can complete dressing tasks with minimal support.[27]
   • the Applicant is supported for all showering tasks, including setting up the environment, support for transfers and most washing tasks. Currently, her shower is not set up to maximise her independence/dignity of her support needs. She has difficulty attending to grooming tasks due to inaccessibility of the vanity.[28]

In relation to these functional issues, Ms Bowkett was not asked to make specific recommendations with respect to modifications to be made to the bathroom/toilet.[29]

1. Mr Castrucci is an Occupational Therapist. He conducted a Complex Home Modifications assessment between 18 December 2023 and 16 February 2024. He prepared a report relating to that assessment dated 16 February 2024[30], he prepared a supplementary report dated 12 September 2025[31] and he also gave oral evidence at the hearing.
2. In his report, Mr Castrucci describes the Applicant's current situation as follows:
   • The Applicant's current bathroom setup is not wheelchair accessible and inhibits her independence with personal care tasks.
   • The Applicant's power wheelchair cannot access the toilet area due to the existing narrow doorway, wall and requires a left-hand turn in order to access the toilet which results in significant difficulty with her accessing and transferring on/off the toilet.
   • The Applicant's power wheelchair cannot access the shower area due to the turns required to access it, the narrow pathway and a lack of turning/circulation space. This results in a need for a high level of support to access and complete transfers in/out of the shower as well as the demonstrated neglect of this task due to the difficulty and effort required.
   • The Applicant's power wheelchair cannot access the vanity due to the lack of space underneath the sink which inhibits her from positioning herself right up against it. This results in the demonstrated neglect in grooming tasks such as brushing teeth and doing her hair due to the difficulty and effort required.
   • The Applicant's bathroom connects with the walk-in robe which is not wheelchair accessible for her due to the turn required to access it, the narrow entrance and the lack of turning/circulation space. The Applicant currently accesses this area with her wheelchair however frequently it damages the walls.[32]
3. With respect to the above issues Mr Castrucci makes the following recommendations:
   • Walls between the toilet, shower and vanity to be removed to open up the bathroom area to enable wheelchair access.
   • Existing entrance between bathroom and walk-in robe to be infilled and new entrance into walk-in robe to be created from bedroom to walk-in robe that is 1100mm in width to enable wheelchair access into the walk-in robe area.
   • Shower to remain in existing location. Larger 1200 x 1300mm level entry shower base to be installed with grab rail to enable the Applicant to access the area with her power wheelchair and facilitate easier and safer shower transfers to/from her wheelchair.
   • Toilet to be relocated and grab rail to be installed. New location will enable wheelchair access and easier transfers from wheelchair to toilet.
   • Vanity to be relocated and new sink to be installed with clearance space underneath to enable wheelchair access to vanity. New location will also enable wheelchair to access the vanity area easily.[33]
4. Mr Castrucci identifies the following benefits of the proposed modifications to the Applicant's existing bathroom:
   • An open plan bathroom area will remove the turns required to access areas such as the toilet, walk-in robe and shower, and remove the narrow entrances and pathways to areas such as the toilet, walk-in robe and shower area.
   • All entrances will be a minimum of 1000mm wide which will facilitate easy access for the Applicant while seated in her power wheelchair.
   • The grab rails being installed in the toilet and shower will facilitate easier transfers from wheelchair to shower/toilet by enabling the Applicant to stabilise herself on and put her weight through the rails.
   • The proposed locations of the shower and toilet will enable the Applicant to bring her power wheelchair right up to the toilet/shower resulting in significantly easier transfers.
   • The new walk-in robe entrance will enable the Applicant to mobilise straight/front on into the area rather than needing to turn-in with little circulation space. The wider 1100mm entrance will enable wheelchair access and enough room for the Applicant to make a left-hand turn into the area while in her power wheelchair.
   • The proposed vanity sink with clearance space underneath will enable the Applicant to go straight-on and right up against the vanity sink while seated in her power wheelchair and enable her to engage in grooming tasks more easily, such as brushing her teeth and doing her hair.[34]
5. In Mr Castrucci's report dated 12 September 2025 he considered the alternatives to the complex bathroom modifications he recommended as suggested by Mr Mate, the Occupational Therapist retained by the Respondent, in his report dated 2 June 2025.
6. With respect to toilet access, Mr Castrucci says that the Applicant must currently complete approximately 4 walking steps from her wheelchair to the toilet as her wheelchair is not able to access this area. While she often does this independently, it contributes to fatigue and PEM, limiting her capacity for other daily activities and increasing reliance on her husband for physical assistance. He says the proposed open plan bathroom design will allow the Applicant to complete a direct pivot transfer from her wheelchair onto the toilet. This removes the need for walking steps altogether, eliminating the associated energy expenditure and fatigue.[35] In cross examination Mr Castrucci, stated that the grab rail next to the toilet in the proposed bathroom modifications would eliminate the Applicant's need to use a walking stick to access the toilet. He said that if the Applicant was able to pull up in her electric wheelchair on the side of the toilet, she would still be required to stand and pivot but it would be less than 180°. He said that the proposed design would eliminate forward moving steps but agreed it would not eliminate weight bearing on both legs whilst she pivoted and transferred to the toilet. Mr Castrucci agreed that in the Applicant's existing bathroom she is required to walk 4 steps to the toilet using a walking stick, then pivot between 90° and 180° to sit on the toilet. In the proposed bathroom she is required to use the grab rail to stand, then pivot less than 180° to sit on the toilet.
7. With respect to shower access, Mr Castrucci says that the Applicant must currently park her wheelchair at the entrance into the shower area and complete 4 walking steps with the use of a single point walking stick to access the shower chair. The redesigned bathroom will allow the Applicant to position her wheelchair significantly closer to the shower chair. As a result, the number of steps required for transfer will reduce to 1-2 steps only. This reduction lowers the physical energy required, decreases her PEM and increases her ability to complete showering independently and more frequently.[36] In cross examination, Mr Castrucci agreed that in the Applicant's current bathroom she is required to walk 4 steps to the shower chair using a walking stick and in the proposed bathroom she is required to walk 1-2 steps.
8. Mr Castrucci agreed that he did not assess any drainage issue associated with the existing shower recess. He could not comment on whether water was flowing out of the shower recess due to the existence of a shower chair in that area or whether it was caused by a bathroom design flaw rather than arising from any impairment suffered by the Applicant. Mr Castrucci agreed that in his proposed bathroom modifications he had included an ordinary shower curtain. In relation to Mr Mate's suggestion that the Applicant use a weighted shower curtain, he comments that this would increase risk and energy expenditure by creating a trip/fall hazard on wet tiles and requiring additional physical movements to open/close.[37] He did agree that a shower curtain would help to retain water splashing out of the area as would a hand held shower head on a sliding rail that was height adjustable or a lower pressure shower head.
9. Mr Castrucci says that when the Applicant attempts grooming at the vanity in her current bathroom, she must approach side-on, using a twisted posture that she cannot sustain for meaningful grooming tasks. The Applicant usually completes grooming tasks such as toothbrushing and hair care either in bed or in other unsuitable areas of the home. This significantly reduces her independence, dignity and ability to complete these tasks to the same standard she could if the vanity was fully accessible.[38] The proposed modifications will provide direct wheelchair access to the vanity, allowing the Applicant to complete grooming tasks (brushing teeth, hair care, applying creams) while seated in her wheelchair.[39]
10. With respect to using a perching stool to access the vanity, Mr Castrucci, reports that the Applicant did trial using one. He says the trial confirmed the equipment is not suitable or safe for her needs. In order to use it, the stool must be put in place and removed again after each use. The stool is heavy (approximately 7kg) and the Applicant cannot move it independently . It obstructs bathroom access . When placed at one sink in the vanity it blocks access to the shower and when placed at the other it blocks access to the toilet. The lack of back or head support does not provide the Applicant with adequate seating compared to her wheelchair or existing shower chair and would exacerbate PEM symptoms. The forward tilted seated position requires the Applicant to maintain a semi-standing or "perching" position, and unsupported posture, which she cannot maintain for sustained periods of time without exacerbating PEM symptoms. Further, sitting with legs and feet down on the floor for sustained periods of time exacerbates POTS symptoms and increases her falls risk.[40]
11. In cross examination Mr Castrucci was asked whether he was aware that the seat on the Applicant's power wheelchair can be raised and tilted forward which helps the Applicant reach items. He indicated he was aware of that feature, but it did not overcome the problem with the Applicant's problems associated with accessing the vanity.
12. With respect to the existing vanity, Mr Castrucci reports that providing wheelchair access to the vanity by replacing the existing unit with a wall-hung vanity does not resolve the more critical barrier which is that the existing vanity and the wall on which it is fixed create a physical obstruction in the bathroom. This prevents wheelchair circulation and restricts the Applicant's ability to position her wheelchair close enough to the toilet for a direct pivot transfer. The wall blocks wheelchair circulation and fails to provide functional access to the toilet. Only the removal of the vanity wall achieves the clinical outcome required; elimination of all reduction of walking steps, and safe, energy conserving access to the vanity, toilet and shower.[41]
13. In cross examination Mr Castrucci agreed that building up activity tolerance is a way for a person to increase their capacity. However, he said the Applicant's proposed bathroom modifications were not going to cause her deconditioning as she was already a full-time wheelchair user and they will improve her ability to engage in self-care.

1. Mr Mate is an Occupational Therapist, he prepared a report for the Respondent dated 2 June 2025[42] and he gave oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Mate assessed the Applicant at her home in the presence of Mr Castrucci on 9 May 2025.
2. Mr Mate formed the opinion that whilst the proposed bathroom modifications are suitable for the Applicant, he did not consider them to be necessary as she was able to access her shower recess, toilet and vanity with full independence.[43] He formed the view that the following items of assistive equipment and minor home modifications would maximise the Applicant's safety and independence in performing her activities of daily living:
   • Shower chair - already in use in existing shower.
   • Perching stool/additional Shower Chair - to reduce the requirement for prolonged standing or alternatively if in her wheelchair to reduce the need for holding a sustained twist and a forward lean when performing grooming tasks at the existing vanity.
   • Wall-hung vanity - to enable under bench access while in a wheelchair and facilitate independence with grooming tasks.
   • Weighted shower curtain - to assist with water retention.
3. Mr Mate estimated the total cost of these items to be between $1,412 and $2,412 plus installation.[44]
4. Mr Mate observed that the Applicant used her power wheelchair for the whole assessment, except when she was required to perform transfers. When performing transfers, she used a single point stick as she mobilised between her wheelchair and the surface she was transferring onto.
5. When accessing the shower, the Applicant was able to access her bathroom in her wheelchair. She parked her wheelchair at the edge of her shower recess, close to where she had installed a small rubber barrier (approximately 10mm high) to prevent water flowing from her shower recess towards her walk-in robe. Once her wheelchair was parked at the edge of her shower recess, she stepped over the extended footplate of her wheelchair and then independently completed 3-4 steps from her wheelchair to her in-situ shower chair. She then transferred onto and off the shower chair independently before independently returning to her wheelchair. She used a single point stick when mobilising between her wheelchair and shower chair and performed this in a safe and controlled manner. The Applicant was observed to access her shower with full independence in a safe and controlled manner. She reported that she showers independently. However, if her shampoo and conditioner/cleansers are not in her shower recess prior to showering, her husband will place them in there on her behalf. To reduce this need, she could keep her shampoo and conditioner in her shower recess. She stated that aside from this minor level of assistance, she showers independently.[45]
6. The Applicant reported to Mr Mate that water flowing out of her shower recess and into her walk-in robe was an additional factor in her modifications request. During the assessment, the provision of a weighted shower curtain to assist with water retention was discussed. The Applicant suggested she felt this would have a 'sauna-like' effect in her bathroom while showering and may flare her symptoms. He formed the opinion that if the water temperature during showering were kept at a mild level, this 'sauna-like' effect would be unlikely, and that if there was a sufficient gap between the top of the shower curtain and the ceiling this would assist with ventilation to further avoid this from occurring.[46] In addition, Mr Mate, considers that the cause of the water flowing from the shower recess into the Applicant's walk-in robe to be a design flaw in the bathroom floor which is not relevant to the Applicant's disability.[47]
7. When accessing the toilet, the Applicant parked her wheelchair close to her toilet door and whilst holding her single point stick in her right hand, she walked 4 steps to her toilet before transferring onto and off it in a safe and controlled manner.[48]
8. The Applicant parked her wheelchair side on to the vanity and sink. From there, she was able to access the vanity storage and her sink. The need for her to be side on to her sink requires a sustained twist when accessing the vanity storage and a sustained twist and forward lean when accessing her sink. The Applicant reported that she does not have the standing tolerance to stand at her vanity during grooming tasks and is required to maintain this twisted, forward-leaning posture.[49]
9. Mr Mate considers the Applicant could use a perching stool or shower chair with sufficient height to access her sink while seated to enable her to sit at her vanity and perform grooming tasks. Mr Mate accepts that this would require her to transfer from the wheelchair to the perching stool or shower chair but based on his observations of the Applicant performing bed, toilet, shower and car transfers, this transfer is well within her capacity. He considers the Applicant to be fully independent in using her bathroom. She reported that she showers independently and was observed to access her bathroom and toilet with full independence and in a safe and controlled manner. He did not observe any signs of fatigue after she demonstrated her capacity. After and during each functional demonstration, she was able to converse in a normal rate of speech, did not lose focus and remained alert and orientated. He had no concerns about her capacity to use the bathroom independently and safely.[50]
10. For these reasons, Mr Mate concludes that he does not consider the proposed bathroom modifications are required.
11. In his oral evidence Mr Mate stated that on the date of his assessment he observed the perform 8 independent transfers in total. She did not appear fatigued. She was alert and orientated during the assessment. He agreed that the total elimination of all walking and standing creates a high risk of deconditioning for the Applicant.
12. When Mr Mate was asked how he expected the Applicant to access items in storage from a perching stool, he replied that she could put things she used regularly within 'arm's reach' from the perching stool.

1. The first question that must be asked in this review is; 'is this support in dispute an NDIS support as defined.' Relevantly, Schedule 1 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth), prescribes those supports that are NDIS supports for the purposes of s 10 and s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. With respect to the support in dispute, item 22 of Schedule 1 prescribes a "Home modification design and construction" category which is defined to be "supports that design, change or modify a participant's home to help the participant live as independently as possible and to live safely at home. This includes (a) installing equipment or changing a buildings structure, fixture or fittings. The Tribunal is satisfied that the support in dispute is an NDIS support for the purposes of s 34(1)(f).
2. The next question that must be asked is does this support in dispute meet the needs of the Applicant arising from an impairment in relation to which she meets the disability requirement, s 34(1)(aa). The temporal focus for s34(1)(aa) is the time that the Applicant's statement of participant supports (SOPS) is approved.[51] The Tribunal understands that it is not controversial that the Applicant lives with the conditions of ME/CFS,POTS and PEM. As a result of these conditions the Applicant suffers neurological and/or physical impairments including pain, inability to stand or hold positions for long periods and fatigue. The evidence is that the Applicant is reliant upon her power wheelchair to mobilise both inside and outside of her home. The Tribunal accepts that these impairments result in a substantially reduced functional capacity for mobility, which impacts the Applicant's actions involved in self-care.
3. The Tribunal now needs to consider the support in dispute, namely the bathroom modifications. The Applicant requests these modifications to address the following issues:

(i) Eliminate all walking steps from her power wheelchair to the toilet. > > (ii) Reduce the walking steps from her power wheelchair to the shower from 4 to 1-2. > > (iii) Fix the drainage problem in her shower. > > (iv) Enable easier access to vanity. > > (v) Enable easier access to walk-in robe. > > (vi) Provide more space in bathroom to manoeuvre wheelchair.

4. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's solutions to these problems in the proposed bathroom modifications are either not related to her impairment or do not provide any real improvement to the existing bathroom design.
5. With respect to the toilet, the proposed modifications still require the Applicant to stand, weight bear on her legs, use a grab rail, pivot less than 180° and transfer onto the toilet. The current design requires the Applicant to stand, weight bear, take 4 steps with a single point walking stick, pivot approximately 180° and transfer. With respect to the shower, the proposed modifications still require the Applicant to stand, weight bear on her legs, use a grab rail, walk 1-2 steps, pivot and transfer onto the shower chair. The current design requires the Applicant to stand, weight bear, take 4 steps with a single point walking stick, pivot and transfer. The Respondent submits that the proposed solutions to accessing the toilet and the shower do not amount to any real improvement or reduction in terms of exhaustion. The Applicant submits that the cumulation of steps over the course of the day associated with going to the toilet and the shower does cause her to fatigue and she then has less energy to other activities including interacting with family, friends and the community. Accordingly, eliminating steps will assist in preventing fatigue and symptoms associated with PEM.
6. In relation to showering, the Applicant contends that Mr Mate's assessment did not take into account her typical showering routine, which involves undressing, preparing the space, washing, drying off, getting dressed again, drying hair and tidying up afterward.[52] The Tribunal notes that all of these activities will need to be done with or without the proposed bathroom modifications. The Applicant submits that when she is unable to shower weekly, she receives a wipe down in bed by her husband. This occurs on the Applicant's worst days when her PEM is more severe. The evidence before the Tribunal, which was provided by the Applicant, is that PEM can follow minimal physical, mental or emotional effort, or other triggers.[53] It can be triggered by any provocation that places a demand on the body including sensory overload, including too much noise, light vibration and movements, postural changes, weather conditions, moulds, volatile chemicals including fragrances, cleaning products, paint and building materials, infections, medications, supplements and vaccinations.[54] Accordingly, based on the evidence provided by and relied upon by the Applicant, she is likely to continue to have bad days when her symptoms are severe and she will not be able to shower weekly, as is her current situation, even with the proposed bathroom modifications. It is not only her showering and toileting activities that trigger her symptoms.
7. The Tribunal does not have before it any expert evidence with respect to the drainage issue in the shower. Mr Mate considers this issue is caused by a bathroom design flaw and does not arise from the Applicant's impairments. Further, he considered that a weighted shower curtain would assist with this issue and because there would be a sufficient gap between the top of that shower curtain and the ceiling, ventilation would be maintained and contrary to the Applicant's belief, such a curtain would not create a 'sauna like' effect in the bathroom for the Applicant whilst showering and would not cause a flare of her symptoms.[55] The Applicant is concerned that she would not be able to reach the curtain from her shower chair and that she may get caught up in the shower curtain which would create a falls risk. This concern is not addressed by the proposed modifications as those modifications include a shower curtain.[56] The Applicant is also of the view that she would require assistance to open a weighted shower curtain to avoid triggering PEM, which will increase the need for support worker assistance.[57] The Applicant has not trialled a weighted or normal shower curtain in her existing bathroom. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no evidence in relation to the Applicant's expressed concerns with respect to the use of a shower curtain
8. With respect to accessing the vanity, the proposed design does provide under-bench/sink clearance for the Applicant's wheelchair which would enable her to sit at the vanity and perform grooming tasks, such as cleaning teeth and applying make-up. The current design requires her to be side on to the sink and sustain a twist to access storage and sustain a twist and a lean forward to access the sink. As a result, the Applicant often performs grooming tasks in her bed and requires her husband or a support worker to access items stored in cupboards or drawers underneath the vanity. Mr Mate suggests that the Applicant could place items that she regularly uses on the bench of the vanity and she could use a perching stool or another shower chair with sufficient height to enable her to sit at her vanity and perform grooming tasks. This would require the Applicant to transfer from her wheelchair to that stool but based on Mr Mate's observations of the Applicant performing bed, toilet, shower and car transfers he formed the opinion that such a transfer is well within her capacity. He went on to state that if this strategy was not successful then the existing vanity could be removed and replaced with a wall-hung vanity that provides under- bench/sink clearance for the Applicant's wheelchair.[58] The Applicant submits that a perching stool or another shower chair placed in front of the vanity would not allow her legs and feet to be elevated and would require her to adopt an unsupported semi-standing posture which provides insufficient support for her upper back and neck which is likely to exacerbate her symptoms and creates a falls risk. It obstructs access to essential storage areas. It is too heavy for her to move independently. Depending on its position it blocks access to the shower or the toilet.[59] The Applicant contends that installing a wall-hung vanity will lead to extensive damage to the bathroom walls, tiles, mirror and floor and it would result in a loss of storage space. She submits that there are no suitable wall-hung vanities available on the Australian market. She does not provide any expert evidence in support of this submission. The Tribunal accepts that installing a wall-hung vanity would cause damage to the existing vanity area but finds that the cost of repairs to such damage would be much less than the cost of all of the bathroom modifications proposed by the Applicant.
9. With respect to easier access to the bathroom and the walk-in robe, the proposed modifications do allow more room for the Applicant to manoeuvre her wheelchair. However, with the current design the Applicant is able to access her walk-in robe and the shower area. She is also able to park her wheelchair close to her toilet door and take 4 steps using a single point walking stick to access the toilet.

1. The Respondent submits that the requested bathroom modifications are not required to address any disability related function of the applicant that cannot be addressed with low-cost assistive technology as recommended by Mr Mate. Further, the proposed bathroom modifications do not meet the reasonable and necessary criteria having regard to the applicant's actual functional capacity and need, which is most appropriately addressed with low-cost assistive technology.
2. Mr Mate observed the Applicant performing fully independent transfers from her power wheelchair, using a single point stick for balance and walking approximately 4 steps to each of her shower chair, the bed, the toilet and the car. All transfers were performed in a safe and controlled manner with no concerns for her safety or falls risk and with no signs of fatigue.[60]
3. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should not accept the Applicant's evidence that she had been advised not to do any exercise. The Applicant's first two SOPS contained funding for physiotherapy to build muscle strength and flexibility. The Respondent submits that this funding must have been based on an underlying report from a health professional making that recommendation. The Respondent submits that the applicant does spend a lot of time being sedentary and lying down and it would not be in the Applicant's best interests to her to support her not to move and to deprive her of the limited opportunities she does have to physically move.
4. The Applicant submits that she will always be physically disabled and will always require the use of her power wheelchair to get around her house. She does require physical assistance with most activities of daily living. The proposed bathroom modifications will give her a small amount of independence back. Her functional capacity is limited and each activity she undertakes comes at a significant cost. Every decision she makes in relation to any activity to be performed is a trade-off. She wants to spend more time with her children and not use the limited energy she has to do basic toileting, showering and grooming tasks. These tasks are small but meaningful parts of her life that she wants to be able to perform them safely, independently and with dignity. She submits that with the bathroom modifications she will conserve enough energy to pursue her goals and not just survive.

Are the proposed bathroom modifications reasonable and necessary?

1. The NDIS is designed to provide participants with supports that are reasonable and necessary to ameliorate their substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions of daily living in specified areas of life. In this respect, it is a scheme that operates in relation to objectively ascertained functional need in specified areas of life, not subjective want at large.[61]
2. With respect to the provision and funding of supports, a participant's choice and control is not unconstrained. It operates subject to the 'reasonable and necessary' considerations set out in s 34(1) and its related rules. By operation of s 34(1)(c) a participant is not free to select a form of support that is more expensive than an alternative that would meet their functional needs just as well. Participant choice and control operates subject to what is reasonable and necessary by way of support, a participant does not dictate what is reasonable and necessary. That is so, notwithstanding the fact that, by operation of s 34(1)(a), the participants goals and aspirations are a relevant consideration in determining what support is reasonable and necessary.[62] Further, the role of informal support in the ongoing support of participants must be recognised and respected in the provision and funding of supports as the principles contained in ss 4(e) and 31 (c) and (ca) of the NDIS Act make it clear.[63]
3. With respect to the s 34(1)(aa) criterion, The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the drainage issue in the shower arises from an impairment in relation to which the Applicant meets the disability requirements. There is no expert evidence to support the Applicant's contention that the drainage issue resulting in water from the shower flowing into her walk-in robe is caused by the use of her shower chair in the shower recess. It could be a bathroom design flaw. In any event, the Tribunal accepts that a weighted shower curtain may address the issue. The Applicant has expressed a number of concerns in relation to the use of a shower curtain, including that she would need someone to open and close it, that she could not reach it from her shower chair, that it would create a 'sauna-effect' and exacerbate her symptoms and that it would create a trip hazard. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's proposed bathroom modifications include a shower curtain, no shower curtain has been tested by the Applicant and there is no expert evidence to support her concerns.
4. With respect to the s 34(1)(a) criterion, the Applicant's goals and aspirations are as follows:
   • To spend quality time parenting and socialising with my young children, so to meet my need to be a mother and build healthy relationships with my children.
   • To have my home organised and clean which will allow me better and safer access to various areas, as I need.
   • To be more independent and continue to live safely in my own home (inside and outside), reducing the burden on my informal carers and improving the relationship I have with them.
   • To improve my health and well-being, with supported family holidays, STA/respite and to eat nutritious and healthy foods.
   • To enjoy community and social connection via Internet with support and community groups, as I'm able so that I'm less isolated and cut off.

The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's request for the proposed bathroom modifications may be consistent with her first and third stated goals. That is, the support is directed to conserving the Applicant's energy so that she can spend more time with her children. It is also directed to allowing her to be more independent with her toileting, showering and grooming activities and to continue to live safely in her home and reduce the burden on her husband who at times assists her with these tasks.

1. With respect to the s 34(1)(b) criterion, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's rationale for requesting the bathroom modifications is to reduce her symptoms related to her conditions especially her PEM so that she has more energy for social and economic related activities such as contact with her family, friends and possibly a return to some form of employment.
2. With respect to the s 34(1)(c) criterion, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the requested support constitutes value for money relative to the benefit to be achieved. In the Bathroom Concept Review, prepared by Allen Kong architect, dated 17 September 2025, the cost of the proposed modifications was stated to be in the vicinity of $95,000 to $115,000.[64] According to that report the Applicant's home is on a waffle slab so alteration to the slab will require documentation from a Structural Engineer and require a building permit to ensure the structural integrity of the slab is not compromised.[65] According to that report if plumbing is relocated, the engineering requires the slab to be cut out entirely and then reinstated after the plumbing has been re-laid . This allows the floor to be set down so that a graded stepless shower can be fitted.[66] A quote was provided from Buildsmart Group dated 28 August 2025 (which expired on 27 October 2025) in the sum of $65,807.79[67] That quote makes no mention of any engineering requirements or cutting the concrete waffle slab. However, even if it was accurate, it is still a substantial sum of money.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the proposed bathroom modifications will provide more space in the bathroom for the Applicant to manoeuvre her wheelchair and enable easier access to the walk-in robe. However, there is little functional gain to the Applicant with these modifications as the Applicant can currently access the shower, the toilet and the walk-in robe albeit with some difficulty. The Applicant's current bathroom does require her to take some additional steps to access the toilet and shower as compared to the proposed bathroom design. In the case of the shower, she is required to take approximately 2 extra steps each way and with respect to the toilet she is required to take approximately 4 extra steps each way. With respect to the vanity the Applicant can access the existing vanity in her wheelchair from a side on position which requires her to twist when accessing the vanity storage and also sustain a twist and a forward lean when accessing her sink. Mr Castrucci gave evidence that the Applicant currently performs grooming tasks such as toothbrushing and hair care either in bed or in other unsuitable areas of the home. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the significant costs associated with altering the entire layout of the bathroom so that the vanity is placed against the wall and the Applicant can access it by placing her wheelchair beneath the sink is value for money relative to the benefit to be achieved. The Tribunal considers that there are other viable options including the use of a properly height adjusted perching stool or a shower stool to access the vanity and if independent evidence is provided that the use of such a stool/chair is not suitable then the installation of a wall-hung vanity to replace the existing vanity. The concerns raised by the Applicant with respect to size, damage to surfaces and replacing tiles can be dealt with by the builder when providing a quotation for the job. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's concerns about the lack of head support associated with the stool or chair. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was able to sit at a desk during the hearing for a morning session without needing to use her headrest. The Tribunal also notes that the Applicant's power wheelchair is height adjustable which is an option that was not explored at the hearing in relation to accessing the vanity.
4. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that there was some over statement by the Applicant about what she could not do. The Tribunal further finds that the Applicant dismissed the cheaper alternatives to the proposed bathroom modifications without giving them a full and proper trial.
5. Mr Mate states in his report; "I see limited functional gain in the proposed modifications, as she would still be required to stand and mobilise a few steps to her toilet or shower recess. She was observed to perform this in a safe and controlled manner." He also says that the Applicant; "demonstrated independence with transfers."[68]
6. Having regard to rule 3.1, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the bathroom modifications will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long term benefit to, the Applicant.[69] The Applicant's PEM can be triggered by a number of factors not just by the energy she exerts associated with going to the toilet, showering and grooming. The proposed bathroom modifications will save the Applicant taking a few additional steps each day to access the toilet and shower and they will avoid the need for her to sit side on to her vanity in her wheelchair and twist to access items stored in the cupboards and drawers underneath it and twist and lean forward to access the sink. The Tribunal agrees with the view of Mr Mate that there is limited functional gain in the proposed modifications. She can currently independently perform transfers and take steps with the aid of a single point walking stick in a safe and controlled manner. She can also independently perform the tasks associated with toileting, showering and grooming except when she is having a bad day, on these bad days her husband is available to assist her. The Tribunal accepts the submission made by the Respondent that it would be beneficial for the Applicant to move and weight bear from time to time given that she is a full-time wheelchair user. The Tribunal does not accept that total elimination of steps, transfers and movement will improve the life stage outcomes for and be of long-term benefit to the Applicant. In fact, lack of movement could be detrimental to the Applicant. The Tribunal accepts that some weight bearing exercise by the Applicant may be beneficial to her and assist in retaining her existing function.
7. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the bathroom modifications are likely to reduce the cost of funding of supports for the Applicant in the long-term.[70] The Applicant has the benefit of a husband who works from home and is available to provide her with assistance when required. The Applicant gave evidence that he has the flexibility to work around her schedule. The Applicant also has the assistance from a support worker. The Applicant gave evidence that she mainly uses her support worker to do the household chores and errands. The support worker is flexible with her availability and could assist the Applicant with personal tasks if required. The support worker currently makes breakfast for the Applicant when her husband is not available to do so. She will sometimes make the Applicant lunch and assist her perform some grooming activities. The status quo of this arrangement is likely to remain the same without funding being provided for the bathroom modifications. Further, for these reasons whilst the bathroom modifications may increase the Applicant's independence it is unlikely to reduce her need for other kinds of supports.[71]
8. With respect to the s 34(1)(d) criterion, the Tribunal notes that for the purposes of rules 3.2 and 3.3 there was no material provided of the kind described. However, for the reasons outlined above, despite the Applicant's evidence that she has been advised not to exercise, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the bathroom modifications will be effective and beneficial for her because it will reduce all movement of her body and weight bearing activities which could have the result of reducing her capacity to independently perform transfers which she is currently able to do in a safe and controlled manner.
9. The Applicant is fortunate to have the care and support from her husband who is able to work from home and has the flexibility to assist her with personal tasks when needed, which is not all of the time. In the context of this case, the Tribunal finds that this support is reasonable to expect her husband to provide.[72]

1. The Tribunal concludes that the proposed bathroom modifications are not reasonable and necessary because they do not represent value for money, they are not effective or beneficial for the Applicant and they do not take into account what is reasonable to expect her husband to provide by way of incidental and occasional support to assist when needed with toileting, showering and grooming.

1. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal orders that the decision of the Respondent dated 30 October 2024 to approve a Statement of Participant Supports that did not include funding for bathroom modifications in the Applicant's home, as varied by the decisions of the Respondent made on 19 May 2025 and 8 October 2025, is affirmed.

[9] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] 24 ALR 577 at 589.

[10] Shi v Migration Agent's Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [45] - [46].

[11] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 at [60].

[12] Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165 (2015); 150 ALD 11 at [68]; HPSC and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 727 at [85].

[13] Section 129(2) of Schedule 1 of the Amendment Act provides that if a statement of participant supports is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, the amendments apply irrespective of whether the Applicant's plan came into effect before, or on or after commencement.

[14] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at [201].

[15] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] 24 ALR 577 at 590

[51] See Forrest and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1131.

[61] Sayadi and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1217 at [81].