Decision: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Respondent dated 26 May 2025.

The substantive Review application is dismissed pursuant to s101(1)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) on the grounds that is has no reasonable prospect of success.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME - practice and procedure - reasonable prospects of success - funding for statement of participant supports in applicant's plan - funding for treadmill - whether the request is an NDIS support - application of relevant law - Tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct review - variation of a participant's plan

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1 Act 2024 (Cth) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Variation and Reassessment of Participant's Plans) Rules 2025 (Cth)

Operational Guideline - Changing your Plan (11 December 2025)

Adamson and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency [2026] ARTA 138

Adams and Comcare (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 51

Brickhill and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 707

Cala and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2290 (29 October 2025)

FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114

Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 2597 (5 December 2025)

1. This application relates to a 36 year old man who is a participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS) on the basis of the impairments attributable to anxiety disorders. He also has diagnosis of[1]:

(a) Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder > > (b) Asthma > > (c) Hypermobility > > (d) Gross and fine motor skills difficulties > > (e) Communication and learning difficulties > > (f) Diabetes type II > > (g) Pars defect of lumber spine at L5 with associated L5 on S1 anterolisthesis of 5mm

2. He has been a participant since 24 May 2022.
3. The following timeline is contended by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Agency) as the relevant steps that occurred prior to the filing of the Application before me on 25 May 2025.

(a) On 19 December 2024 a planning meeting was held and at that meeting the planner requested further information from the Applicant in relation to the request for assistive technology. After the meeting, an email was sent to the Applicant requesting their physiotherapist complete an assistive technology template.[2] > > (b) On 19 December 2024 a statement of participants supports was included in a plan created by the NDIA. This plan covered the period 19 December 2024 to 18 December 2025.[3] > > (c) On 12 February 2025 Mr Groen requested a variation to the supports contained in his statement of participants supports, pursuant to s47A(1A)(d)(ii), to include funding for a treadmill. In support of this request, he included an assistive technology assessment template completed by his treating physiotherapist dated 31 January 2025.[4] > > (d) On 26 May 2025 the Agency made a decision not to fund the treadmill (the reviewable decision) on the basis: > > > (i) Is similar to other supports they are receiving through the NDIS. > > > > (ii) Is a day-to-day living cost. > > > > (iii) Is not value for money as there are other supports which are more cost effective and can give them the same or better outcomes. > > > > (iv) Is not most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS.

4. On 26 May 2025 Mr Groen made an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of the reviewable decision (the Application).[5]
5. On 2 June 2025, the Agency wrote to Mr Groen to advise they had changed his plan which covered the period 19 December 2024 to 18 December 2025.[6]
   1. On 30 October 2025 the Agency made a request for the Tribunal to consider the issue of jurisdiction and whether the application should be summarily dismissed.
   2. The Application has come before me for an interlocutory hearing to consider whether the Application should be summarily dismissed. However, a threshold issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction is required to be considered before the request for summary dismissal.

1. Mr Groen submitted a written position on 19 October 2025 and a further written submission on 9 December 2025. I will refer to these two documents as Mr Groen's written position.
2. The Agency provided a written position dated 4 December 2025. I will refer to this document as the Agency's written position.
3. In addition to the written position of the parties, I have before me the following evidence:

(a) T-documents filed by the Respondent on 21 July 2025; and > > (b) Email from NDIA Planner to Mr Groen dated 19 December 2024; and > > (c) Email from Carla Hutchings to NDIS dated 12 February 2025 attaching an assistive technology template; and > > (d) Record of enquiry by Mr Groen of the progression of his request dated 5 March 2025; and > > (e) Record of telephone discussion NDIS with Mr Groen dated 26 May 2025; and > > (f) Mental Health Treatment Plan of Dr Salma Husain dated 18 January 2021; and > > (g) Health Summary Sheet of Dr Salma Husain dated 6 March 2024.

4. An oral interlocutory hearing was conducted on 3 February 2024 by telephone. Mr Groen's father, Bernie Groen, attended as the representative of Mr Groen and Ms Joy Malouff of the law firm Maddocks appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
5. Both Mr Bernie Groen and Ms Malouff made oral submissions during the interlocutory hearing.

1. The NIDA Act sets down the law that underpins the NDIS.
2. Individuals who are granted access to the scheme are referred to as 'participants'.[7] The scheme provides individual plans to participants, which fund certain specified supports.
3. Section 33 of the Act identifies the matters that must be included in a participant's plan. Section 33(2) requires that a plan include a statement of participant supports prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. Section 33(2)(a) to (e) of the Act specify the statement of participant supports must include general, reasonable and necessary supports in addition to the date by which the Agency must reassess the plan, and information regarding management of other plan aspects.
4. Section 33(5) of the Act directs that when deciding whether to approve a statement of participant supports the decision maker must have regard to the participant's statement of goals and aspirations, relevant assessments, the principle that a participant should manage their plan to the extent that they wish, the operation and effectiveness of previous plans and compliance with spending in addition to being satisfied the supports are reasonable and necessary and the NDIS rules are applied.[8]
5. On 3 October 2024 the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Amending Act) came into force. Numerous provisions in the Act were amended. The Amending Act introduced the concept of old framework plans.[9] Section 129(1) of the Amending Act outlines the content and approval of a statement of participant supports in an old framework plan.
6. Section 34(1) of the Act sets down what is required to be established in order to determine a support is 'reasonable and necessary':

(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.

7. Section 47A of the Act permits a variation to a participant's plan on either the request of the participant or at the CEO's initiative. Section 47A(1) states that the CEO may vary a participant's plan if the variation is covered by s 47A(1A) and any conditions prescribed by the NDIS rules are satisfied.
8. The relevant rules are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Variation and Reassessment of Participants' Plans) Rules 2025 (Variation Rules) that came into effect on 3 March 2025. NDIS Rules are legislative instruments and so are binding on the Tribunal.[10]
9. Section 47 permits the CEO to vary a participant's plan in certain circumstances.

Variation of participant's plan - change of participant's statement of goals and aspirations > > (1) A participant may give the CEO a changed version of the participant's statement of goals and aspirations at any time. > > Note 1: The participant may make a request under subsection 47A(2) for a variation of the participant's plan or make a request under subsection 48(2) for a reassessment of the participant's plan. > > Note 2: The CEO may vary the plan under subsection 47A(1) or may reassess the plan under section 48, 49 or 49A.

10. Section 47A(2) provides the CEO with the power to make a variation to a participant's plan.

Variation on request of participant or CEO's own initiative > > (1) The CEO may vary the participant's plan on request of the participant or on the CEO's own initiative.

11. Relevantly s47A outlines the basis upon which the CEO can make variations to a participant's plan. Relevantly to this Application it states:

47A Variation of participant's plan on request of participant or CEO's own initiative

(1) The CEO may, in writing, vary a participant's plan (except the participant's statement of goals and aspirations) if:

(a) the variation:

(i) is covered by subsection (1AA) (for a new framework plan) or (1A) (for an old framework plan); or

(ii) is a correction of a minor or technical error; and

(b) any conditions prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules are satisfied.

Each variation must be prepared with the participant.

(1A) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(a)(i), the following variations of an old framework plan are covered:....

(d) a variation of the statement of participant supports included in the plan, or of the funding of supports under the plan, if:

(i) the CEO is satisfied that the participant requires crisis or emergency funding as a result of a significant change to the participant's support needs; or

(ii) after the participant's plan comes into effect, the CEO receives information in response to a request that had been made under subsection 36(2) or 50(2) in relation to the plan (other than a request made under subsection 50(2) for the purposes of varying the plan on the CEO's own initiative), and the variation relates to that information; or

(iii) the variation is made for the purposes of dealing with a change to the reassessment date of the participant's plan; or

(iv) the variation is a minor variation that results in an increase to the funding of supports under the participant's plan.

Note 1: Information mentioned in subparagraph (d)(ii) could relate to a support such as an item of assistive technology or a home modification.

Note 2: A statement of participant supports in a participant's plan must give effect to the plan management request of a participant except in certain circumstances (see subsection 43(2)).

Note 3: In varying the participant's plan in relation to the statement of participant supports, the CEO must have regard to the matters set out in subsection (3) of this section.

(a) a variation covered by any of paragraphs (1A)(ab) to (ae) must be made in accordance with subsections 33(2A) to (2D) and any determination in force for the purposes of subsection 33(2E); and

(b) a total funding amount for an old framework plan cannot be varied except by a variation covered by paragraph (1A)(d) of this section.

1. The threshold question before me is whether there is a reviewable decision capable of being considered by the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this Application.
2. The Agency contends the substantive application before the Tribunal relates to a Decision of the Agency to refuse to grant request by Mr Groen to vary his plan dated 19 December 2024. This is based upon the submission of an Assessment Template - General Assistive Technology (the Template) by Mr Groen via Ms Hutchins on 12 February 2025.[11] This is taken to be a request to vary his statement of participants supports to include funding for a treadmill which is a request to vary a plan pursuant to s47A(1A)(d)(ii) of the NDIA Act.
3. This is pertinent because it goes directly to the powers the Tribunal has on review. If, on internal review, a decision is made not to vary a participant's plan pursuant to s 47A of the Act this would then limit the Tribunal to merely determining whether the decision not to vary the Applicant's plan was correct or not (Item 6A of s 99 of the Act). It does not permit the Tribunal to determine whether or not the requested support should be included in the Applicant's statement of participant supports (as permitted by Item 4 of s 99 of the Act).
4. Mr Groen did not offer any submission to dispute the Agency's contention in relation to the basis upon which the variation was sought.
5. I am satisfied the request of Mr Groen to include a treadmill in his statement of participants supports in his plan was made as a request to vary his plan under s47A(1A)(d)(ii) for the following reasons.

(a) Mr Groen's plan is an "old framework plan" for the purpose of the NDIA Act.[12] > > (b) A Plan was approved for Mr Groen by a delegate of the CEO of the Agency on 19 December 2024. The plan covered the period 19 December 2024 to 18 December 2025.[13] > > (c) Mr Groen sought to vary his plan, which had been the subject of discussions in a planning meeting on 19 December 2024.[14] The Agency then asked Mr Groen to provide further information by way of an Assessment Template - General Assistive Technology (the Template) to be completed by his physiotherapist on 19 December 2024, after the planning meeting.[15] > > (d) That Template was completed by Ms Hunter, Mr Groen's physiotherapist and provided the CEO's delate under cover of Ms Hutchins' email on 12 February 2025.[16] This became Mr Groen's request to vary his plan under s47A(1A)(d)(ii).

6. Section 46A(4) of the NDIA Act requires the CEO's delegate to provide Mr Groen with their decision to his request vary the plan or otherwise within 21 days, namely on or before 4 March 2025.
7. Pursuant to section 47A(5) of the NDIS Act, as the CEO failed to determine the variation request of 12 February 2025, it is deemed the was made decision not to vary the Applicant's plan on 4 March 2025.
8. Subsequently, the Agency was automatically required to conduct an internal review of the decision not to vary the Applicant's plan pursuant to section 100(5)(b) of the NDIS Act. That internal review was completed on 26 May 2025 and affirmed the decision not to vary the Applicant's plan made on 19 December 2024 (the Reviewable Decision).
9. Mr Groen made his application for a review of the reviewable decision on 26 May 2025. I find the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the internal review decision pursuant to s103 of the NDIS Act in combination with s12 of the ART Act.

1. In Mr Groen's written position he contends the Tribunal should vary his Statement of Participant's Supports (SOPS) found in his plan to include funding for a NordicTrac X221i Treadmill (the Treadmill) as, in essence, it is a reasonable and necessary support within the meaning of s34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cwth).
2. Mr Groen, through Mr Bernie Groen, his father, submitted in support of the continuation of the Application:

(a) He has significant anxiety and sensory distress when he is required to leave the house. He becomes agitated, nervous and prone to panic attacks, especially during car travel. Because of his anxiety he son rarely leaves the house.[17] > > (b) He has difficulty sleeping.[18] > > (c) He has more disabilities than those which are relied upon by the Agency.[19] > > (d) Access to a treadmill would: > > > (i) Provide a safe and effective way for to exercise regularly as he would not need to go outdoors or into public spaces; > > > > (ii) Regular physical activity would help his mental and physical health and allow his sleep and mood to improve. > > > > (iii) Promote his independence and reduce reliance on external supports.[20] > > (e) The treadmill which is recommended is not a standard treadmill as it has a screen which will is different to the types of treadmills found at the local gym.[21] > > (f) The provision of a treadmill is consistent with his stated NDIS goals which are to improve his health and wellbeing.[22] > > (g) If he does not have access to a treadmill at home, he will need to have a support worker work with him to try to take him to his physiotherapist to engage in exercise.[23]

3. The Agency, conversely, in their written position, contends the Application should not proceed to a substantive hearing and should by summarily dismissed under section 101 (1)(b) of the ART Act on the basis the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The basis for this assertion is the support Mr Groen seeks is not an NDIS support and therefore incapable of being granted to him by the Tribunal. In support of this contention, they consider it is included in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules as a precluded item, falling within the category of excluded supports under item 4(r) as "standard gym equipment.
4. Further, as the Treadmill is the only support before the Tribunal, they seek the Tribunal to summarily dismiss the Application.
5. The power to summarily dismiss an Application is found in s101(1) of the ART Act. It states:

s101 Tribunal may dismiss application if frivolous, vexatious etc.

(1) The Tribunal may, at any time, dismiss an application made to the Tribunal if the Tribunal is satisfied that the application:

(a) is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or

(c) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Tribunal.

(2) If the Tribunal dismisses an application (the substantive application) under subsection (1), the Tribunal may, on application by a party to the proceeding in relation to the substantive application or on its own initiative, order that the applicant for the substantive application must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make a subsequent application to the Tribunal of a specified kind or kinds.

(3) The order has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other Act.

1. The use of the word 'may' under s 101(1) of the ART Act provides the Tribunal with a discretionary power to dismiss an application. This threshold for the Tribunal to exercise such discretion 'is one of satisfaction'.[24]
2. In considering the dismissal power, and in particular whether an application has 'no reasonable prospects of success', the Tribunal is persuaded by the Agency's reasoning supported by SM French's decision in Brickhill[25]:

- the power is a discretionary power that is only to be used in a clear case where the Tribunal is satisfied that it has the requisite material and the necessary assistance from the parties to reach a definite and certain conclusion. > > - it is a discretion that is to be used sparingly and cautiously in relation to cases that are so untenable they cannot possibly succeed. If a legitimate purpose could be achieved by allowing the application to continue, it ought to proceed. However, if an application can serve no purpose for the Applicant, it should not continue. > > - the Tribunal will exercise the discretion to decide a determinative question of law if it is satisfied the point is clear. When it examines the evidence pursuant to an application to exercise the discretion in relation to a question of law, it does so for the purpose of determining if an arguable case for review is disclosed, not for the purpose of making findings of fact. > > - in determining if it has no prospect of success the Applicant's case must be taken at its highest. > > - the summary dismissal Applicant (in this case the Agency) bears the practical onus of establishing that the substantive Applicant's case is so obviously untenable that it can not succeed. > > - the policy that lies behind the discretion is to enable the Tribunal to terminate a review at a preliminary stage when it is a futility to avoid the delay and public costs that would be associated with its continuation.

3. The purpose of reviewing the relevant factual material before me in relation to the dismissal application is to determine if Mr Groen has an arguable case for the granting of a variation of his plan based on s35 and s34 of the NDIA Act. It is not to make findings of fact in relation to that material.
4. The Respondent contends the substantive question before the Tribunal is whether Mr Groen's plan should be varied s47A(1A)(ii) to include funding for a treadmill. They further contend the issue before the Tribunal is therefore confined to that support and is not request for reassessment therefor the Tribunal cannot consider Mr Groen's plan at large. Further, they contend the for Tribunal to determine whether the variation should be granted, the need to consider the Treadmill should be included in Mr Groen's statement of participants supports as prescribed in s33(5)(c) and s34 of the NDIS Act.
5. Mr Groen agreed that was the issue before the Tribunal.
6. Section 34 requires all of subsections (aa) to (f) to be satisfied for a support to be considered reasonable and necessary. In my consideration of s34, I adopt the approach outlined by Senior Member French in FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency[26] (FSWN). In this Decision he outlined the process of inquiry when considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (Transitional Rules) as:[27]

Stage 1 > > Ascertain if the requested support is an "NDIS" Support as defined. This inquiry is focused on the support, not the participant. > > Step 1: Determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table. > > If the answer to that question is "yes", then stage 1 is complete. The requested support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for inclusion in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f) (subject to a replacement support determination being made, as to which see following). > > If the answer to that question is "no", then proceed to step 2 of stage 1: > > Step 2: Determine if the requested support is of a character capable of falling within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that can fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of that Table. > > If the answer to that question is "no", then the requested support will not be a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for including in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f). > > If the answer to that question is "yes", then the requested support will be a NDIS Support that is capable of being approved for inclusion in a SoPS by operation of s 34(1)(f), and stage 2 of the enquiry is reached. > > Stage 2: > > Ascertain if the requested support satisfies each of the other criteria specified in s 34(1)(aa) to (e) and the associated Supports Rules. There is some overlap of the stage 1 and 2 enquiries. However, in my opinion stage 2 is primarily a participant focused enquiry. That is, it seeks to establish the benefit of the support to the participant. To the extent that stage 2 also requires examination of the efficacy of the support per se it adds nothing to the outcome of the stage 1 enquiry in my opinion.

7. Section 10 of the NDIA Act defines an 'NDIS support', and needs to be considered in concert with s34.[28]
8. A support will be a 'NDIS support' if the support is declared to be one under the NDIS rules made for the purposes of s10 either in respect of all participants or prospective participants or a specified class of participants or prospective participants.[29]
9. Conversely, the NDIS rules may also declare that a support is 'not a NDIS support' either in respect of all participants or prospective participants or a specified class of participants or prospective participants.[30]
10. Relevantly, the Transitional Rules designate, by operation of Rule 5 and by reference to Schedules 1 and 2 of those Rules, those Supports that are "NDIS Supports" and those that are "generally not NDIS Supports" for the purpose of s 10 of the NDIS Act.
11. To consider Mr Groen's request, the specific issues requiring determination are:

(a) does the requested support fall within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports in column 2 of the table and, if not > > (b) does the requested support fall within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the table to Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports in column 2 of the table?

12. Adopting SM French's approach, stage 1 - step 1 - there is a category column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules into which a treadmill may sit.
13. Item 4(r) in Schedule 2, Column 1 has a category Day-to-day living costs - lifestyle - membership and entry to a recreational club and standard gym equipment.
14. I consider a treadmill can be viewed to fit into the category standard gym equipment.
15. Section 4 of the Transitional Rules contains the following definition:

standard item for a participant or prospective participant means an item that has not been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant or prospective participant.

16. The majority of the Members of the Guidance and Appeals Panel of the Administrative Review Tribunal considered the interpretation of this section in Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde[31]. They consider it a requirement to consider whether the support sought has been modified or adapted to address the participant's impairments. Their guidance provides:

In our view, it is abundantly clear from the Transitional Rules, in particular the definition of 'standard item' in section 4, that a support which is potentially a 'standard item' will only fall within that description and be excluded by Schedule 2, if it has not been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the relevant participant. It follows that to determine whether the support is caught by Schedule 2, it is necessary to determine whether the support sought has been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant. If it has been, it will be excluded from the operation of Schedule 2.[32]

17. The assessment template completed by Ms Deborah Hunter, physiotherapist on 31 January 2024[33] was comprehensive and considered the physical, sensory and behavioural limitations she felt were relevant to Mr Groen's disabilities. This included Mr Groen needing to engage paid support workers to implement a waking program and to assist him to go outside into the community.[34]
18. At Part 3.1 Ms Hunter recommends a Nordic Trac X22i Treadmill at the cost of $4,250. She continues at part 3.2 of the template to address the heading "Included Mainstream Items: and notes "A treadmill can be purchased from the mainstream market. A treadmill is an ideal and cost-effective solution for Ben. It will enable him to safely and independently complete a prescribed walking program at home on a daily basis."[35]
19. Whilst I do not make a determination about the granting of a treadmill to Mr Groen, I do find the prospects of Mr Groen being able to substantiate the requested treadmill is not a piece of standard gym equipment, particularly, it has been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of Mr Groen to be so obviously untenable that it cannot succeed. At its highest Mr Groen would need to establish a treadmill could be modified or adapted to address Mr Groen's impairments arising from his psychosocial impairments and satisfy the Tribunal it is an NDIS support. Whilst I accept Mr Groen has many diagnoses for which a treadmill would provide him a great benefit, it would not appear to be capable of being granted as an NDIS support for his accepted impairments.
20. Weighing up Mr Groen's rights to have an application to review a Decision of the Agency, against the objects of the Tribunal, the requirement of the Tribunal and the parties to identify at the earliest opportunity when an applicable is futile, the cost to the taxpayer in conducting applications in the ART and the considerable stress Mr Groen and his family would be put under to continue with litigating the application.
21. I find the substantive Review application is dismissed pursuant to s101(1)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) on the grounds that is has no reasonable prospect of success

[2] Email Murray S, NDIS Planner to Bernie Groen dated 19 December 2024 at 11:40am

[9] See Chapter 3, Part 2, Subdivision C of the Act.

[12] Respondent Submission dated 30 January 2026 - paragraph 20. See Chapter 3, Part 2, Subdivision C of the NDIA Act

[14] Add pinpoint of their written submission

[15] Email Murray S, NDIS Planner to Bernie Groen dated 19 December 2024 at 11:40am

[16] Email Carla Hutchins to NDIS dated 12 February 2025 at 10:24pm

[17] Submission of Mr Groen dated 19 October 2025

[21] Oral evidence during hearing 3 February 2025

[23] Submission of Mr Groen dated 9 December 2025

[24] Adams and Comcare (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 51 at [26].

[25] Brickhill and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 707 at [22]

[26] FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114

[28] National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s 33(5)

[29] National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s10(1)

[30] National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s 10(4)

[31] Chief Executive officer, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde (Guidance and Appeals Pane)[2025] ARTA 2597 (5 December 2025)