1. The Respondent objected to the stay application and provided brief written submissions dated 3 September 2025.

1. An interlocutory hearing was convened on 12 September 2025. The Applicant attended by MS Teams audio. The Respondent was represented at that hearing by Ms Stockley of Maddocks Lawyers.

1. The Tribunal's power to make a stay order is found in subsection 32 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act). Subsection 32(1) provides that, generally, making an application to the Tribunal does not affect the operation of the decision or taking action to implement the decision.
2. Subsection 32(2) of the Act permits an exemption to this general rule. Upon application by a party to a proceeding the Tribunal may make an order staying the decision or operation or implementation of a decision if the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.
3. Before making such a decision, subsection 32(7) states that the Tribunal must not make a stay decision unless the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and the Tribunal has considered the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision.
4. Section 46 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) requires a participant to spend money only on NDIS supports and in accordance with the participant's plan.
5. Section 44 of the NDIS Act outlines when a participant must not manage the funding for supports under the participant's plan. This includes, at paragraph 44(1)(c), when the CEO is satisfied that section 46 of the NDIS Act would not be complied with.
6. Section 99 of the NDIS Act sets down the decisions that are reviewable by the CEO. This relevantly includes a decision to approve a statement of participant supports in a participant's plan.
7. Subsection 100(6) of the NDIS Act states that a reviewer of a decision may confirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision.
8. Subsection 103(1) of the NDIS Act states that an application can be made to this Tribunal for decisions that are made by a reviewer under subsection 100(6) of the Act.
9. Subsection 103(2) of the NDIS Act states that if a request is made for review of a statement of participants supports or a participant's plan and before a decision on review is made there is a variation to a statement of participant supports or a new plan, the request for review is also taken to be a request for review of the decision to vary the statement of participant supports or the new plan.

1. I am satisfied that the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. I have also considered the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision.
2. The Applicant's submissions can be summarised as follows. Agency management of his core supports means that he lacks flexibility to meet his needs. He gave the example of the current funding arrangement potentially denying him the choice to spend hours at the beach if he so chose; his flatmate cannot be paid for such excursions because he may have exhausted his funding for the month. He also plans to travel to his place of birth and wants his flatmate to come to accompany him and provide support. He asked how this would be possible with the imposition of monthly Agency managed funding. He wants a return to an arrangement whereby he has flexible, plan managed supports with funding provided on an annual basis. Any concern that he may exhaust his funds does not recognise his needs. Such an outcome would place him at risk.
3. The Respondent opposes the stay application. The Respondent submits that in refusing the stay application, any prejudice to the Applicant would not rise to the level of irreversible prejudice.

1. The Tribunal does have the power to issue an order otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of part of the decision, provided the Tribunal is persuaded it is desirable to do so to ensure the effectiveness of the review.
2. As I understand it, the Applicant's preferred outcome is not to secure a stay of the full decision in contention (that is, the plan dated 17 February 2025). The request is narrower, being to stay the implementation of Agency management and monthly funding periods with the February 2025 statement of participant supports.
3. In the matter GAP-AAA and GAP-AAB; Child Support Registrar [2024] ARTA 1 Kyrou J, the President of the Tribunal, set down the relevant principles when considering a stay application in respect to subsection 127(1) of the ART Act (where a party can seek a stay order in guidance and appeal panel decisions). Subsection 127(1) largely mirrors the provisions subsection 33(2) of the ART Act. The principles are succinctly outlined at paragraphs [12] to [15] of that decision and do not require repeating. I adopt Kyrou J's reasoning for the purposes of determining this application.
4. Having considered the submissions presented I am not persuaded that a stay application as sought should be granted.
5. Firstly, I do not accept the proposition that without a stay order any possible success on review of the Applicant's claims would be 'rendered nugatory'.[1]
6. Further, I am not persuaded that in not granting the stay as sought there would be irreversible prejudice to the Applicant. Certainly, there was no evidence presented to me by the Applicant at hearing that this would be the case. His submissions, at their highest, is that he would not get to apply his funding in any way he deemed necessary.
7. After balancing the prejudice to the Applicant and to the Agency and giving due consideration of what the interests of justice requires in this particular case, I am not satisfied that a stay, as sought by the Applicant, is desirable for the purposes of securing the effectiveness of the review.
8. Accordingly, the application is refused.

[1] GAP-AAA and GAP-AAB; Child Support Registrar [2024] ARTA 1 at [12].