ORDER: Pursuant to Rule 13(2)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024, the Tribunal orders that the amount of Ms Jaafar's reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the Tribunal summons issued on 11 August 2025 is $407 inclusive of GST.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - summons to produce documents - claim for allowance for complying with summons - reasonable expenses - applicable principles - determination of allowance

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) s 77(1)

Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 r 13(2)(b)

Federal Court Rules 2011 Schedule 3

Bestt and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2017] AATA 1235

Carver and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 1534

Stekovic and Comcare (Compensation) [2021] AATA 2230

1. On 22 July 2024, Ms O'Callaghan applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision of a delegate of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) declining her request for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the Scheme). Ms O'Callaghan's application was listed before a Registrar of the Tribunal for a case event for directions for the future conduct of the review.
2. On 17 June 2025, the NDIA's legal representatives wrote to the Tribunal requesting a summons be issued to Ms O'Callaghan's psychologist Ms Jaafar for production of documents. The summons subsequently issued by the Tribunal sought production of:

Any and all emergency records, radiology and pathology results, surgical notes, clinical notes, rehabilitation reports, medical reports, prescription notes, correspondence to/from medical practitioners, correspondence to/from allied health practitioners, correspondence to/from the Applicant and any other documents in the psychologist's possession including all electronic communication regarding Ms O'Callaghan's referrals for other and or multidisciplinary care treatment/s including any referrals to NSW Health and other gov services and organisations, relating to the Applicant, Suzanne O'Callaghan...

1. On 11 September 2025, Ms Jaafar produced 334 pages of records to the Tribunal. The documents were produced electronically and lodged via the Tribunal's online portal.
2. A dispute arose regarding the amount of Ms Jaafar's reasonable expenses for production of the documents. The matter was listed for an interlocutory hearing on 17 December 2025 on application by Ms Jaafar,[1] for the purpose of hearing argument on this question. Unfortunately, the purpose of the hearing was not properly communicated to the NDIA's legal representatives and therefore they were not in a position to make submissions on the day. Accordingly, the Tribunal heard from Ms Jaafar and then adjourned the matter to give both parties the opportunity to make written submissions on the question of Ms Jaafar's reasonable expenses.
3. The Tribunal subsequently received written submissions from both Ms Jaafar and the NDIA's legal representatives. I have considered these in making my decision.

1. Ms Jaafar submits that on receipt of the summons she sought advice from her indemnity insurer regarding compliance. She subsequently advised the NDIA's legal representatives that compliance would likely incur substantial costs, and provided an estimate of fees calculated in accordance with the fee schedule of the Australian Association of Psychologists Inc (AAPi).
2. On 15 September 2025, Ms Jaafar invoiced the NDIA's legal representatives for the sum of $2,359.50 inclusive of GST. Ms Jaafar contends the amount subsequently offered by the NDIA's legal representatives for her expenses related to compliance with the summons does not adequately account for the work she has undertaken.
3. Ms Jaafar submitted:

Representatives of Moray & Agnew lawyers asserted that I was "only asked to produce the required documents relating to the Applicant and not to review any of its substantive content." This does not reflect the nature of compliance with a summons for clinical psychologist records. Responding to a subpoena or summons is a legal obligation, not a simple administrative request (scanning or copying documents), as suggested. Psychologists need to consider legal compliance with ethical obligations often requiring legal advice, review of material, and careful handling of sensitive records before disclosure.[2]

1. In summary, Ms Jaafar submitted that in order to comply with the summons she was required to:
   • locate all responsive clinical records across a multi-year file;
   • read and carefully review each record and document to determine relevance and lawful disclosure;
   • exercise professional judgement to ensure compliance with confidentiality, privacy and ethical obligations, including:
     • - legally privileged material is not disclosed
     • - information that may place third-party individuals at risk is considered and handled appropriately; and
     • - the production is complete and limited to what is required, and

• collate, prepare and produce the documents electronically.[3]

1. At the interlocutory hearing, the Tribunal drew Ms Jaafar's attention to the Schedule 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 and the decision of Bestt and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission[4] as relevant sources of information to inform her written submissions. In those submissions, Ms Jaafar submitted that the Tribunal's recognition in Bestt of the obligations imposed on a person to comply was, in her case, a recognition of her professional obligations a registered psychologist bound by the Psychology Board of Australia Code of Conduct; in particular her professional obligations as covered by the Code when dealing with patient clinical records. She submitted that to produce clinical records without review would be professionally negligent.
2. Ms Jaafar produced a table mapping the work identified in the dot points above to relevant Items in Schedule 3 of the Federal Court Rules, along with a brief supplementary description of each category of work. Ms Jaafar did not attribute a dollar value to each category of work in the table she produced. Instead, she relies on the breakdown provided in her original invoice of 6.5 hours at $330 per hour for 334 pages, exclusive of GST. She contends this calculation is 'in accordance with the AAPi professional fee schedule, an accepted industry benchmark for psychological services'.[5]
3. The Respondent submits that 6.5 hours to produce 334 pages at a cost of $330 per hour is excessive in view of the volume and nature of the records provided. Those records comprise:
   • copies of Ms O'Callaghan's application forms for access to the Scheme;
   • emails from Ms Jaafar to the NDIA, Ms O'Callaghan and advocacy services regarding Ms O'Callaghan's access application;
   • mental health care plans and GP referral letters, and
   • handwritten session notes.
4. The Respondent submits that a reasonable amount for production of the requested records should be determined in accordance with the calculations arrived at in Stekovic and Comcare (Compensation)[6] of $0.70 per page for photocopying plus an administration fee of $35. Applying this calculation, the Respondent contends that $268.80 is the amount of Ms Jaafar's reasonable expenses in complying with the summons. In the alternative, the Respondent submits a total administration fee of $100 is appropriate, on the basis that additional administrative expenses for review and collation of documents should not take more than 30 minutes. The Respondent submitted this would bring the amount of reasonable expenses incurred by Ms Jaafar to $333.80.

1. Section 77(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) provides:

(1) A person required by this Act, another Act or an instrument made under an Act to give information or produce or give a document or thing to the Tribunal is to be paid, in accordance with the rules, any fees, and any allowances for expenses, prescribed by the rules for compliance with the requirement.

A summons issued by the Tribunal to give evidence or produce documents under section 74 of the Act is such a requirement.

1. Rule 13(2)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 (the Rules) provides:

(2) For the purposes of subsection 77(1) of the Act, the following allowances are prescribed:

(b) for compliance with a summons under subsection 74(1) of the Act for a person to produce a document or thing to the Tribunal - the person's reasonable expenses in producing the document or thing.

The Rules do not define the term reasonable expenses.

1. Rule 14(5) provides that the Tribunal may, by order, determine the amount of fees or allowances to be paid where the person summoned and the party who requested the summons cannot agree on the amount of the fee or allowance.

1. The starting point for the inquiry into what should be paid in respect of reasonable expenses of production of documents is the approach approved in Bestt that the amount should not exceed the expenses incurred in meeting the requirement for production. The expenses are to be understood as the actual expenses connected with compliance.[7]
2. In the former Tribunal it was the 'usual practice' to apply the Federal Court Rules to determine reasonable expenses.[8] Other than providing that rules rather than regulations will prescribe fees and allowances, the ART legislative scheme does not suggest any different method or approach to the calculation of reasonable expenses. Therefore, I propose to apply the former Tribunal's 'usual practice' to this matter.
3. It seems to me that this presents a difficulty for Ms Jaafar. The AAPi schedule of recommended fees for psychological services[9] provides for an item described as clinical file review for subpoena or other reasonable purposes. The item sets lump sum amounts for service times in increments of 30 minutes to a maximum of 120 minutes, beginning with a 30-minute block at a fee of $181. The relevant parts of the schedule provide:

Clinical file review for subpoena or other reasonable purposes

Photocopying of records for subpoena or other reasonable purposes

1. It is difficult at first blush to see how the recommended fee for 60 minutes which Ms Jaafar has used as the basis for her calculation is supported by the table. There is however clarification in the Guidelines and Notes document which accompanies the table and provides:

Fees are at the discretion of the individual psychologist or practice and can be calculated with the suggested hourly rate of $330 as a guide.

1. The difficulty with this approach is that it provides no assistance in establishing a basis on which to assess the actual reasonable expenses incurred by Ms Jaafar in complying with the summons. This is the exercise the Tribunal is tasked with. A claimant for reasonable expenses must establish a proper basis for the Tribunal to accept that amounts claimed accurately reflect the expenses reasonably incurred in complying with the summons.[10]
2. Ms Jaafar submits that substantial professional care and attention was necessary in order to discharge her professional obligations pursuant to the relevant code of conduct for registered psychologists. A similar argument was considered by the Tribunal in Carver and Comcare (Compensation).[11] There the Tribunal was required to determine, amongst other matters, the reasonable expenses of a medical practitioner who, in responding to a summons to produce documents, contended that the value of his professional time was an expense incurred in producing summonsed documents. In addition to identifying and considering the documents, the practitioner had met with another doctor in the medical practice who was also involved in the patient's treatment to discuss whether any risks to the patient were likely to arise out of releasing the records; had communicated with a lawyer to seek legal advice and had communicated with his medical indemnity insurer. The lawyers for Comcare submitted that the Tribunal ought not to accept the contention that the medical practitioner's professional time fell within the meaning of 'reasonable expense'.
3. The Tribunal held that whilst it was reasonable for the practitioner, having been served with a summons, to obtain advice from a lawyer, there was:

[66]...a distinction between what doctors are required to do to discharge their professional duty to patients or to practice according to standards expected by the Medical Board of Australia and that which is required by law when served with a summons.

This was not to gainsay the steps taken by the practitioner, which bespoke a sensitivity to his client's wellbeing, but the Tribunal observed this was essentially part and parcel of carrying out his vocation. The Tribunal held that, apart from the cost of obtaining legal advice, all other items claimed did not fall within the meaning of allowances for production of things within the regulation, and so were not recoverable.[12]

1. Whilst I acknowledge the care Ms Jaafar has taken to comply with the summons, applying the above principles I am unable to find that the amount claimed represents her reasonable expenses for complying with the summons.
2. Applying Schedule 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, I find the following are Ms Jaafar's reasonable expenses:
   • for the collation (Item 8) of 334 pages of documents, applying item 1.3: 2 hours - $280;
   • for electronic document management (Item 6) which includes scanning, applying item 1.3: 30 minutes - $70;
   • for preparing email correspondence (Item 2.3) in connection with complying with the summons - $57.

Pursuant to Rule 13(2)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024, the Tribunal orders that the amount of Ms Jaafar's reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the Tribunal summons issued on 11 August 2025 is $407 inclusive of GST.

[1] Rule 14(5) Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 provides for the making on an application by a person summoned under section 74 of the ART Act to apply to the Tribunal to determine the fee or allowance to be paid.

[2] Submission dated 29 January 2026 at p 2

[4] [2017] AATA 1235

[5] Submission dated 29 January 2026 at p 4

[6] [2021] AATA 2230

[9] Attachment to Ms Jaafar's submissions dated 29 January 2026

[11] [2019] AATA 1534