1. The Tribunal's role in conducting this independent review has been to reach its own conclusion as to whether the CEO by her delegate was correct in concluding that the Applicant does not meet the disability or early intervention requirements for access to the NDIS.[2] That has involved the independent re-assessment of the evidence that was before the delegate when they made their decision as well as the assessment of the additional documentary and witness evidence that was before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing.[3]

1. I have considered the following evidence in this independent review:

(a) A Joint Tender Bundle filed on 31 October 2025, > > (b) A supplementary Tender Bundle filed on behalf of the CEO on 7 November 2025, > > (c) The CEO's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed on 10 November 2025, and > > (d) The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed on 11 November 2025.

2. The hearing was conducted by MS Teams on 11 and 12 November 2025.
3. The Applicant gave oral evidence in his own cause under affirmation. The CEO called as a witness an independent expert she had engaged to assess the Applicant, being Ms Catherine Cummings, Occupational Therapist, who also gave evidence under affirmation.

1. On 3 October 2024 the NDIS Act was amended by the measures contained in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the amending Act). Schedule 1, Items 19 to 27 of that Act introduced changes to the disability and early intervention requirements. However, by operation of Item 126 of the schedule those changes apply only to an access request made after 3 October 2024. The Applicant's access request was made to the Agency on 10 October 2023,[4] so these changes are inapplicable in this case. Item 126 of Schedule 1 of the amending Act also provides that the NDIS Rules as they were in force prior to 3 October 2024 continue to apply to an access request made prior to that date. This independent review will therefore apply the disability and early intervention requirements as they stood prior to 3 October 2024.

1. The NDIS is a Commonwealth program of social assistance which has as its target group persons with disability who are Australian residents under the age of 65 who experience substantially reduced functional capacity to perform essential tasks in one or more designated life activity areas due to one or more permanent intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory, or physical impairments or one or more permanent impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable.[5] This is a limited sub-category of the total population of persons with disability in Australia.[6] The NDIS is not intended to fund direct supports for every person with disability in Australia.[7]
2. The task of this independent review is to determine if the Applicant is a person with disability for whom the NDIS is intended. That involves the application of the access criteria contained in the Act and the Rules, some of which specify not only a criterion but also a threshold or level which must be satisfied before the criterion can be met.[8]
3. To be eligible for access to the NDIS, a prospective participant must satisfy an age requirement, a residence requirement, and either the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements.[9]
4. The broad purpose of these access criteria is to impose some restrictions on who can access funding for supports available under the NDIS.[10] These requirements are specified in the NDIS Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2013 (Cth) (the Becoming a Participant Rules).
5. The Agency has also developed operational policy to assist in its administration of the NDIS, including in relation to deciding if a prospective participant meets the access criteria for the scheme. While these guidelines are not formally binding on the Tribunal, as the Act and the Rules are, they represent government policy which should be applied unless there is a cogent reason not to do so.[11] The operational policy applicable in this case is called "Applying to the NDIS- Pre-Legislation Changes" (14 October 2024).[12]

1. Section 21(1) of the NDIS Act provides that a prospective participant will meet the access criteria for the NDIS if the CEO is 'satisfied' that each of the access criteria is met. In this independent 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.[13] Therefore, while neither the Applicant nor the Agency bear any formal onus of proof, the Applicant does bear the practical onus of placing or pointing to evidence before the Tribunal that can persuade it that each of the access criteria are met.[14]

1. The age requirement for access to the NDIS is found in s 22 of the NDIS Act and Part 3 of the Becoming a Participant Rules. A prospective participant will meet the age requirement if they were aged under 65 when the Access Request was made. The temporal focus for this eligibility criteria is the time the Access Request was made. Provided the prospective participant was under the age of 65 when the Access Request was made, it will not matter that they may be older than 65 when the Access Request is decided.
2. In this case, the Applicant was just over 64 years and 10 months of age when his Access Request was made on 10 October 2023. The Applicant's age is verifiable in the material before me by reference to various health records that have been submitted into evidence. Additionally, I note that in the context of his Access Request the Applicant consented to the CEO verifying his age by reference to his Centrelink customer records, which she did.[15]
3. The CEO submits that the Applicant meets the age requirement for access to the NDIS. I am also satisfied on these bases that the Applicant meets this requirement.

1. The residence requirement for access to the NDIS is found in s 23 of the NDIS Act and Part 4 of the Becoming a Participant Rules. Relevantly to the Applicant's circumstances, a person will meet the residence requirement if they reside in Australia and are an Australian citizen.
2. In his Access Request the Applicant consented to the CEO verifying his Australian residency by reference to his Centrelink Customer records, which she did.[16]
3. Having regard to this, the CEO submits that the Applicant meets the residence requirement for access to the NDIS. I am also satisfied on this basis that the Applicant meets this requirement.

1. When he submitted his Access Request Form the Applicant listed as his "main disability" Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (cPTSD) and as his "other disability" a "back injury". While his case has been before the Tribunal the Applicant had appeared to add Dissociative Identity Disorder, right sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJ dysfunction), Pudental Neuralgia (PN), right hip osteoarthritis and left hip and bilateral knee arthritis to the health conditions that he saw as relevant to this Access Request. The CEO's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC) was prepared based on this understanding.
2. However, in his SOFIC and opening statement, the Applicant clarified that he did not contend for an independent Dissociative Identity Disorder, rather, he contended that dissociation was an impairment that he experienced as a result of his cPTSD. Additionally, the Applicant clarified that he did not base his case for access to the NDIS on right hip osteoarthritis and left hip and bilateral knee arthritis. If I understood him correctly, that was because he accepted that these were still in an early stage of onset and subject to medical assessment.
3. Consequently, it is the impairments, if any, that are derivative of cPTSD, SIJ dysfunction, and PN that are before the Tribunal for consideration. The CEO accepts that the Applicant lives with these health conditions and that they are permanent. I will discuss the impairments that are derivative of these conditions following.
4. With respect to whether the impairments that are derivative of these conditions result in the Applicant having substantially reduced functional capacity in any of the six life activity areas specified in paragraph 24(1)(c), the Applicant confines his case to mobility, self-care and social interaction. He does not contend for substantially reduced functional capacity for communication, learning or self-management. The CEO contends that the Applicant does not experience substantially reduced functional capacity in any life activity area.
5. If the paragraph 24(1)(d) requirement is reached, which the CEO does not concede, she accepts that the Applicant's impairments affect his capacity for social and economic participation.
6. If the paragraph 24(1)(e) requirement is reached, which the CEO does not concede, she contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant is likely to require supports under the NDIS for his lifetime. In this respect, she contends that there are other service systems available to the Applicant, including the Commonwealth Home Support Program, a universal program for persons, relevantly, aged 65 years and older. In this respect she submits that the applicant is now (as at the date of the hearing) almost 67 years of age.

Does the Applicant meet the disability requirements?

1. The disability requirements for access to the NDIS are found in s 24 of the Act and Part 5 of the Becoming a Participant Rules.
2. Section 24 (as in force prior to 3 October 2024) provided:

24 Disability requirements

(1) A person meets the disability requirements if:

(a) the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory, or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable; and

(b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and

(c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:

(i) communication;

(ii) social interaction;

(iii) learning;

(iv) mobility;

(v) self-care;

(vi) self-management; and

(d) the impairment or impairments affect the person's capacity for social and economic participation; and

(e) the person is likely to require supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that vary in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to require supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime, despite the variation.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that are episodic or fluctuating may be taken to be permanent, and the person may be taken to be likely to require supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime, despite the episodic or fluctuating nature of the impairments.

1. Rules 5.4 to 5.7 of the Becoming a Participant Rules deal with the question of when an impairment is permanent or is likely to be permanent for the purposes of the disability requirements. Those Rules provide:

When is an impairment permanent or likely to be permanent for the disability requirements? > > 5.4 An impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent ... only if there are no known available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment. > > 5.5 An impairment may be permanent notwithstanding that the severity of its impact on the functional capacity of the person may fluctuate or there are prospects that the severity of the impact of the impairment on the person's functional capacity, including their psychosocial functioning, may improve. > > 5.6 An impairment may require medical treatment and review before a determination can be made about whether the impairment is permanent or likely to be permanent. The impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent only if the impairment does not require further medical treatment or review in order for its permanency or likely permanency to be demonstrated (even though the impairment may continue to be treated and reviewed after this has been demonstrated). > > 5.7 If an impairment is of a degenerative nature, the impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent if medical or other treatment would not, or would be unlikely to, improve the condition.

2. Rule 5.8 deals with the question of when an impairment results in a substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake a specified activity. That rule provides:

When does an impairment result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake relevant activities > > 5.8 An impairment results in substantially reduced functional capacity of a person to undertake one or more of the relevant activities - communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self-management ... - if its result is that:

(a) the person is unable to participate effectively or completely in the activity, or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate effectively or completely in the activity, without assistive technology, equipment (other than commonly used items such as glasses) or home modifications; or

(b) the person usually requires assistance (including physical assistance, guidance, supervision or prompting) from other people to participate in the activity or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate in the activity; or

(c) the person is unable to participate in the activity or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate in the activity, even with assistive technology, equipment, home modifications or assistance from another person.

1. As will be observed from s 24(1) of the Act, five criteria must be satisfied for the disability requirements to be met. These criteria are expressed to be conjunctive in nature, meaning that if any one criterion is not satisfied, the disability requirements cannot be met. Having regard to that fact, one way of conceptualising these criteria is as a series of gateways along a linear pathway. The criterion specified in paragraph 24(1)(a) must be satisfied before the gate opens to consideration of the criteria specified in paragraph 24(1)(b), and that criterion must be satisfied for the gate to open consideration of the criterion specified in paragraph 24(1)(c), and so on.
2. If a gateway to consideration of a subsequent criterion does not open, there is no utility in consideration of that or any other subsequent criteria. Concomitantly, if it is clear on the evidence that a later gateway cannot open, there is no utility in considering the earlier criteria.

Paragraph 24(1)(a): Does the Applicant have a disability attributable to impairment?

1. Paragraph 24(1)(a) requires the Applicant to establish that he has a 'disability' that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological or physical impairments or that he has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable.
2. In the context of paragraph 24(1)(a), and Chapter 3 of the NDIS Act more generally,[17] the term "disability" has a specific meaning, being a functional outcome that is attributable to specified categories of impairment. The concept of impairment is distinct from the concept of "disability", and from a diagnosed health condition. Care needs to be taken not to conflate these separate concepts or use them interchangeably. Failure to maintain this conceptual distinction may lead to a misapplication of the access provisions.[18]
3. The term 'impairment' is not defined in the NDIS Act. However, the Agency's operational guidelines define it to mean "a loss of or damage to your body's function".[19] I note that this conceptualisation of impairment for the purposes of s 24(1) was specifically approved by the Court in Davis.[20] That definition is a simple rendering of the definition of impairment used in the application of the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF), [21] which is "a problem of body function or structure such as a significant deviation or loss as compared with typical or expected function or structure". [22]
4. Specifically with respect to paragraph 24(1)(a), as the Court observed in Davis, it is necessary to identify and describe with precision the impairment to which a prospective participant's disability is attributable, because the access criteria contained in paragraphs 24(1)(b) to (d) require evaluation of the permanency and impact of that impairment on the prospective participant's functional capacity and social and economic participation.[23] In this respect, as I have explained in DQKZ,[24] the ICF is extrinsic material to which the Tribunal may have regard in ascertaining with objective precision the impairment of body structure or function which is at issue for the purposes of s 24. That is because it is a standardised classification system, which has as one of its primary objectives the provision of a standard language and conceptual framework in relation to human function.[25]
5. The Applicant's cPTSD is a health diagnosis, not an impairment. I understand the impairments the Applicant contends he lives with because of this condition are impairments of global and specific mental function.[26] These are impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable for the purposes of paragraph 24(1)(a).
6. The impairments of global mental function he contends for are:
   • - impairment of consciousness functions (dissociation),
   • - impairment of temperament and personality functions, specifically psychic stability, openness to experience, optimism, and confidence, and
   • - impairment of energy and drive functions, specifically motivation.
7. The impairments of specific mental function he contends for are:
   • - Impairment of emotional functions (appropriateness, regulation and range of emotion).
8. The Applicant's SIJ dysfunction and PN are also health diagnoses rather than impairments. I understand the impairments the Applicant contends he lives with because these conditions are pain and impairments of digestive, genitourinary and reproductive function. These are neurological impairments for the purposes of paragraph 24(1)(a). They are:
   • - sensation of pain, [27]
   • - sensations associated with the digestive system (defecation urgency), [28]
   • - sensations associated with urinary functions (urination urgency), [29] and
   • - sexual function. [30]
9. I have described these impairments within the classification system and language of the ICF for the sake of precision, rather than in the lay terms they were generally referred to at the hearing and in the documentary evidence before me. However, subject to that qualification, the CEO made no challenge to the existence of these impairments. I am also satisfied on the Applicant's oral evidence on the medical and other documentation before me as to the existence of these impairments.
10. The gateway therefore opens to consideration of the paragraph 24(1)(b) requirement.

Paragraph 24(1)(b): Are the Applicant's impairments permanent?

1. The CEO does not challenge the permanence of the Applicant's cPTSD, SIJ dysfunction, or PN. The medical evidence before me establishes that the Applicant has lived with these conditions for many years, and that he has undertaken, and continues to undertake, pharmacological and psychological treatment for these conditions.
2. There is no issue in this case that the impairments that are derivative of these health conditions are also permanent, in the relevant sense that they are 'enduring'.[31]
3. With respect to Rule 5.5 the evidence is to the effect that the severity of the impact of the Applicant's neurological impairments on his functional capacity fluctuates. He experiences pain "flareups" that reduce his mobility. The evidence is also to the effect that the Applicant continues to engage in psychological treatment in which may result in some further improvement to his psychosocial function. Notwithstanding that I am satisfied in accordance with this Rule that his impairments of global and specific mental function are permanent.
4. The gateway therefore opens to consideration of the paragraph 24(1)(c) requirements.

Paragraph 24(1)(c): Do the Applicant's impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity in a specified life activity area._

1. The Applicant does not contend that his impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity for communication, learning or self-management. On the evidence before me I am also satisfied that that the Applicant has substantial functional capacity for communication, learning or self-management. It is not arguable that he has substantially reduced functional capacity in these areas. [32] I make those findings.
2. As noted above, the Applicant contends that his permanent impairments as found in the paragraph 24(1)(a) and (b) enquiries result in substantially reduced functional capacity for social interaction, mobility and self-care. The CEO contests this.

1. In Burrows[33] I concluded that the determination of what constitutes 'substantially reduced functional capacity' should be approached with the interpretative assistance available from the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS:2.0),[34] which is a standardised assessment tool for measuring health and disability under the framework of the ICF.[35]
2. WHODAS:2.0 assesses the 'degree of difficulty' a person experiences in doing specified activities of daily living in terms of "increased effort", "experience of discomfort or pain", "slowness" and "changes in the way a person does the activity" (the difficulty factors) according to a five-point scale expressed as a % of functional limitation which is 'none' (or 'no problem', 0 - 4%), 'mild' (or 'mild problem', 5 - 24%), 'moderate' (or 'moderate problem', 25 - 49%), 'severe' (or severe problem', 50 - 95%), and 'extreme or cannot do' (or 'complete problem', 96 - 100%) (the difficulty ratings). I note that the comparator base for the difficulty factors and ratings is a person who does not have the subject person's health condition/impairments.[36]
3. In Burrows I expressed the opinion that the statutory concept of 'substantially reduced functional capacity' should be understood as involving a degree functional limitation greater than moderate having regard to the ICF/WHODAS2.0 difficulty ratings. That is, it requires a determination that the subject person's impairments result in functional limitations that are 50% or greater than the degree of function expected of a person who does not have their health condition/impairment.[37]
4. I adopt my reasoning in Burrows as to what constitutes substantially reduced functional capacity in this case. I note that the CEO's submissions rely upon an established line of reasoning in this Tribunal and the former AAT which conceptualises this phrase as a test with a "high threshold". I do not demur from the substance of that line of reasoning. I simply attempt to bring a degree of social scientific objectively to ascertaining the threshold at which it is engaged.

1. A second preliminary issue that requires comment is in relation to the approach to be taken in determining the scope and content of each of the paragraph 24(1)(c) activity areas. I have also set out my thinking in relation to this issue at some length in Burrows. [38] I adopt what I said there for present purposes without repeating it.
2. I note that I reached essentially two conclusions at the end of that discussion. First, that the scope of each activity area is to be treated as determinate rather than variable or elastic so that the statutory test can be applied consistently rather than arbitrarily. That proposition appears to have received recent judicial support in Lampard.[39]
3. Second, in determining the scope of each activity area, the Tribunal is to look at the parameters drawn by the Agency's operational policy, supplemented where necessary by the specific descriptions of the tasks and actions that are involved in each subtask area that are contained in the ICF.[40]
4. In taking that approach I am cognizant that I am not bound by government operational policy, and that the language of the statute must ultimately be determinative of the scope of each activity area. However, the scope of the activity areas is not prescribed in the Act or Rules and is not self-evident. It must be ascertained by some means. Having regard to that, consistently with the principle established in Drake (No.2),[41] I am satisfied I should apply the Agency's operation policy to ascertain the scope of the activity areas, there not being any inconsistency in them with the statute and rules apparent to me (and none contended for in this case). Where greater specificity is necessary, the ICF provides relevant guidance for the reasons I stated in Burrows.

The distinction between functional capacity and functional performance

1. A third preliminary issue requires comment as a preface to the paragraph 24(1)(c) inquiry. In Mulligan[42] and Foster[43] the Courts observed that the paragraph 24(1)(c) inquiry requires the decision maker to ascertain with precision what, from a practical point of view, a person can and cannot. This draws into focus the distinction between a person's functional capacity to undertake a task or action (that is, what objectively they can do) and their functional performance of that task or action (that is, what they do, including but not limited to what they choose to do). In Foster (on remittal)[44] I expressed the opinion that paragraph 24(1)(c) is concerned with a prospective participant's functional capacity to perform a task or action in a life activity area, whereas the prospective participant's functional performance of that task or action is a matter that goes to the paragraph 24(1)(d) requirement. I note that this approach was adopted by the Full Court in Lampard, and by virtue of that, may now be taken to be settled law.[45]

The questions the Tribunal must pose and answer for the purposes of the paragraph 24(1)(c) analysis

1. In Foster(on remittal) I set out in some detail the questions the Tribunal must pose and answer, and the chain of analysis required, to determine if a prospective participant experiences substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions in a paragraph 24(1)(c) life activity area due to their permanent impairments. I adopt what I said there for present purposes without repeating it.[46]
2. With this background I turn now to consider the question of whether the Applicant experiences substantially reduced functional capacity for social interaction, self-care and mobility.

1. I have set out above the Applicant's permanent impairments as found in the paragraph 24(1)(a) and (b) enquiries.
2. As I understand the Applicant's case, he contends that both his impairments of global and specific mental function, and his neurological impairments, result in substantially reduced functional capacity for social interaction.
3. Having regard to the Agency's Operational Guidelines, the tasks and actions involved in the social interaction (or 'socialising' as it referred to in the Guidelines) life activity area are:

- tasks and actions associated with making and keeping friends,

- tasks and actions associated with interacting with other people in the community (who are not friends),

- tasks and actions associated with behavioural and emotional regulation in a social context.

1. This short description of tasks and actions may be elaborated by reference to the clusters of tasks and actions specified in the d710, d720, and d730 - d750 activity clusters in Chapter 7 of the ICF, which are in summary:

- d710 Basic interpersonal interactions: interacting with people in a contextually and socially appropriate manner, such as by showing consideration and esteem when appropriate, or responding to the feelings of others. Inclusions: showing respect, warmth, appreciation, and tolerance in relationships; responding to criticism and social cues in relationships; and using appropriate physical contact in relationships,

- d720 Complex interpersonal interactions: maintaining and managing interactions with other people, in a contextually and socially appropriate manner, such as by regulating emotions and impulses, controlling verbal and physical aggression, acting independently in social interactions, and acting in accordance with social rules and conventions. Inclusions: forming and terminating relationships, regulating behaviours within interactions, interacting according to social rules; and maintaining social space,

- d730 Relating with strangers: engaging in temporary contacts and links with strangers for specific purposes, such as when asking for directions or making a purchase,

- d740 Formal relationships: creating and maintaining specific relationships in formal settings, such as with employers, professionals or service providers. Inclusions: relating with persons in authority, with subordinates and with equals,

- d750 Informal social relationships: entering into relationships with others, such as casual relationships with people living in the same community or residence, or with co-workers, students, playmates or people with similar backgrounds or professions. Inclusions: informal relationships with friends, neighbours, acquaintances, co-inhabitants and peers,

1. The evidence in relation to the Applicant's functional capacity for social interaction may be summarised as follows:[47]

- in the past the Applicant has had various friendships. However, these have mostly fallen away. He currently has local contact with one friend who he sees regularly, approximately fortnightly. That has been a close supportive friendship in the past. However, the friend has more recently put boundaries on their relationship because of the extent of emotional support the Applicant has sought from him,

- the Applicant believes he has made bad intimate relationship choices in the past. Because of this he is avoidant of intimate contact with others, and of social environments where he perceives himself at risk of making other bad relationship choices,

‑- the Applicant is engaged with his psychologist in relation to the above and will work on these issues over the coming year,

- the Applicant is lonely and feels isolated from others,

- in the past the Applicant has experienced episodes of emotional and behavioural dysregulation on a reactive basis in the context of a violent domestic partnership. Additionally, he reports episodes of dissociation in interactions with police officers and medical staff when under extreme stress. Objectively, these events are historical and context specific. There is no evidence of the Applicant being emotionally and behaviourally dysregulated on any systemic basis,

- in the recent past the Applicant has been an active participant in the local Hare Krishna temple community. However, he has withdrawn from participation because he apprehends that he will be the target of ridicule by an organiser of that community who he contends has verbally abused him twice for being unable to provide physical assistance in the conduct of community events,

- the Applicant is a participant in a therapeutic support group which he attends regularly. He interacts with the group organiser and other participants during those events. He contends that social interaction with group members outside the group sessions and workshops is discouraged, and he does not pursue this,

- he contends that he avoids participating in social events, and attending recreation and entertainment events, to preserve funds to pay for his various medical appointments,

- he drives into the centre of his town every day, or nearly every day. He attends a local community centre established to support his community to recover from severe floods. He socialises with the staff of that centre and with other people who drop-in there over coffee. However, he contends these are relatively superficial interactions. This centre is likely to close in the foreseeable future because the flood-recovery effort is winding up,

- he does all his own shopping at least weekly. As noted above, he attends his town centre and environs every day, or nearly every day. He interacts with staff in shops and has incidental contact with other customers and members of the community. He does not experience any social interaction problems in doing so,

- he has regular appointments with a psychologist, chiropractor, remedial massage therapist, osteopath and general practitioner. He does not experience any social interaction difficulties in doing so,

- he goes to the gym twice a week and has incidental context with gym staff and other gym members/attendees. He does not experience any social interaction difficulties in doing so,

- he maintains close telephone contact with his sister who lives in another country. He both initiates and receives this contact. Although for the reasons I stated in Coffey,[48] family relationships do not come within the scope of the social interaction life activity area, the skills he demonstrates in maintaining this relationship are relevant to the assessment of his functional capacity for social interaction.

- the Applicant presented at the hearing and gave evidence without any evidence of difficulty in social interaction. He interacted with the Tribunal, the CEO's counsel, and his disability advocates in a contextually and socially appropriate manner. His conduct demonstrated respect, warmth, and appreciation.

1. I make these findings.
2. Having regard to this evidence, I turn first to consider Rule 5.8. I am not satisfied that this Rule is engaged in this case. The Applicant can perform the tasks and actions involved in social interaction without assistive technology, equipment or home modifications, and he does not usually require physical assistance, guidance, supervision or prompting from other people to do so.
3. I now turn to consider if the Applicant's impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions involved in the social interaction life activity area otherwise than in the circumstances specified in the Rule.
4. I am not satisfied that they do.
5. The evidence does establish that the Applicant's functional performance of the tasks and actions involved in the social interaction life activity area is affected by several externalities, which include his relative wealth (he cannot afford to socialise due to the cost of his medical/allied health services), the unwelcoming conduct of a Hare Krishna Temple organiser, the out-of-session contact rules of the support group he attends, and the forthcoming closure of the flood-recovery drop-in centre. These externalities have nothing to do with the Applicant's intrinsic functional capacity for social interaction.
6. The evidence also establishes that the Applicant's functional performance of the tasks and actions involved in the social interaction life activity area is affected by his impairments of global and specific mental function. Against the backdrop of a previous violent intimate relationship, he has impaired openness to experience, confidence and optimism in pursuing relationships with other people. His impairment of emotional functions has resulted in him placing unsustainable demands on a friend. However, while these impairments affect the Applicant's functional performance of the tasks and actions involved in social interaction, they do not reflect his intrinsic functional capacity for it. The Applicant's functional performance is considered under paragraph 24(1)(d). It is his intrinsic functional capacity is considered under paragraph 24(1)(c).
7. I accept the Applicant's evidence that he has engaged in episodes of severe emotional and behavioural dysregulation in the past in the context of a violent intimate relationship. I also accept that this dysregulation extended to contacts with police and medical staff involved in his coercive treatment at that time. However, objectively, this was context specific, reactive dysregulation. I am not persuaded that it reflects an enduring intrinsic loss of functional capacity for social interaction.
8. On the evidence before me it cannot be said that the Applicant does not have the functional capacity to perform the tasks and actions associated with making and keeping friends or interacting with other people in the community. He has the functional capacity to show respect, warmth, and appreciation. He can engage in temporary contacts and links with strangers for specific purposes, such as when making purchases in shops, and attending the gym. He can create and maintain formal relationships with service providers, such as his health practitioners. He has the functional capacity to initiate and reciprocate recurring contact with others (as is evidenced by his ongoing contact with his sister). He has been able to form casual relationships with other participants in the community centre and his therapy support group, which includes socialising over coffee etc.
9. I therefore conclude that the Applicant does not have substantially reduced functional capacity for social interaction.

1. I have set out above the Applicant's permanent impairments as found in the paragraph 24(1)(a) and (b) enquiries. As I understand it, the Applicant contends that it is his neurological impairments that result in substantially reduced functional capacity for self-care.
2. Having regard to the Agency's Operational Guidelines, the tasks and actions involved in the self-care life activity area are:

- tasks associated with personal care, including personal hygiene and grooming,

1. This short description of tasks and actions may be elaborated by reference of the clusters of tasks and actions specified in the d510 to d570 activity clusters in Chapter 5 of the ICF, which are in summary:

- d510 Washing oneself: washing and drying one's whole body, or body parts, using water and appropriate cleaning and drying materials or methods, such as bathing, showering, washing hands and feet, face and hair, and drying with a towel,

- d520 Caring for body parts: looking after those parts of the body, such as skin, face, teeth, scalp, nails and genitals, that require more than washing and drying,

- d530 Toileting: planning and carrying out the elimination of human waste (menstruation, urination and defecation), and clean oneself afterwards,

- d540 Dressing: Carrying out the coordinated actions and tasks of putting on and taking off clothes and footwear in sequence and in keeping with climatic and social conditions, such as by putting on, adjusting and removing shirts, skirts, blouses, pants, undergarments, saris, kimono, tights, hats, gloves, coats, boots, sandals and slippers,

- d550 Eating: Carrying out the coordinated tasks of eating food that has been served, bringing it to the mouth and consuming it in culturally acceptable ways, cutting or breaking food into pieces, opening bottles and cans, using eating implements, having meals, feasting or dining,

- d560 Drinking: Taking hold of a drink, bringing it to the mouth, and consuming the drink in culturally acceptable ways, mixing, stirring and pouring liquids for drinking, opening bottles and cans, drinking through a straw or drinking running water such as from a tap or spring; feeding from the breast,

- d570 Looking after one's health: Ensuring physical comfort, health and physical and mental well-being, such as by maintaining a balanced diet, and an appropriate level of physical activity, keeping warm or cool, avoiding harms to health, following safe sex practices, including such as using condoms, getting immunisations and regular physical activities.

1. The evidence in relation to the Applicant's functional capacity for self-care may be summarised as follows:[49]

- the Applicant experiences defecation and urinary urgency during 'flare-ups' of his neurological impairments. He does not experience faecal or urinary incontinence but prefers to be near a toilet because of these sensations. He can perform all the tasks and actions involved in toileting independently,

- the Applicant can perform all the tasks and actions involved in washing himself independently. During flare-ups of his neurological impairments, he may shower less frequently due to pain and may sit on the floor to do so. However, it is not contended, and there is no evidence of, any lack of personal hygiene,

- the Applicant can wash his face and hands, brush his teeth, shave, brush his hair, and cut his toenails and fingernails independently,

- the Applicant generally maintains good nutrition. During periods of flare-ups of his neurological conditions, he chooses to prepare simpler meals, or prepare meals (such as soups) in bulk, or order meals to be delivered, but it is not contended, and there is no evidence, of malnutrition,

- the Applicant can dress his upper and lower body and put on shoes and socks independently. During flare-ups of his neurological impairments, he elects to wear loose fitting clothing that is easier to put on and take off,

- the Applicant is independent in his health care. He manages his medications and regularly attends on his General Practitioner, psychologist, chiropractor, and remedial massage therapist independently. As noted above, he generally maintains good nutrition. He attends a gym and maintains a regular structured home-based exercise program designed to reduce pain and maintain body function,

- there is no evidence of squalor in the Applicant's home. The photographs of its interior in Ms Cumming's report depict it to be in immaculate condition.

1. I make these findings.
2. Having regard to this evidence, I turn first to consider Rule 5.8. I am not satisfied that this Rule is engaged in this case. The Applicant can perform the tasks and actions involved in self-care without assistive technology, equipment or home modifications, and he does not usually require physical assistance, guidance, supervision or prompting from other people to do so.
3. I now turn to consider if the Applicant's impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions involved in the self-care life activity area otherwise than in the circumstances specified in the Rule.
4. I am not satisfied that they do.
5. Generally, the Applicant can undertake the tasks and actions associated with all aspects of his personal care, including washing his whole body and taking care of body parts. He can dress his whole body independently. He can perform all tasks and actions in relation to toileting independently. He can eat and drink independently. He is engaged with health care professionals and adherent with prescribed treatment. There is no evidence of squalor.
6. I am satisfied that the Applicant's functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions in the self-care life activity area is affected by the episodic flare-up of his neurological conditions. During these periods, he will experience a degree of discomfort and pain in the performance of these tasks, it may take him longer than usual to perform them, and he may modify the way that they are done (such as by showering less frequently, and by cooking bulk meals etc). However, on the evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that the degree of difficulty he experiences in the performance of these tasks and actions is more than moderate, for essentially two reasons.
7. First, the Applicant remains functionally independent with all self-care tasks and actions despite the degree of difficulty he encounters during flare-ups.
8. Second, in my opinion, the Applicant's functional capacity is to be assessed longitudinally, not cross-sectionally on a 'good' or a 'bad' day. While I give weight to the Applicant's evidence that he experiences recurring flare-ups of his neurological impairments, and that this results in a temporary reduction in functional capacity, I am not satisfied that the cumulative effect of these flare-ups is to substantially reduce his overall functional capacity for self-care. He can manage the ups and downs in his functional capacity with moderate difficulty.
9. I therefore conclude that the Applicant does not experience substantially reduced functional capacity for self-care.

1. I have set out above the Applicant's permanent impairments as found in the paragraph 24(1)(a) and (b) enquiries. I understand the Applicant to contend that his neurological impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity for mobility.
2. Having regard to the Agency's Operational Guidelines, the tasks and actions involved in the mobility life activity area (or 'mobility and moving around' as it is referred to in the policy) are:

- tasks associated with moving around within the home,

- tasks associated with moving around within the community (how you get out and about),

- tasks associated with getting in and out of bed, and

- tasks associated with getting in and out of a chair.

1. This short description of tasks and actions may be elaborated by reference to the clusters of tasks and actions specified in the d410 (changing body position), d460 (moving around in different locations), and d470 and d475 (moving around using transportation) activity clusters in Chapter 4 of the ICF:
   • - d410 Changing basic body position: Getting into and out of a body position and moving from one location to another, such as getting up out of a chair to lie down on a bed and getting into and out of positions of kneeling and squatting. Inclusions: changing body position from lying down, from squatting or kneeling, from sitting or standing, bending and shifting the body's centre of gravity.
     • - d4100 Lying down: Getting into and out of a lying down position or changing body position from horizontal to any other position, such as standing up or sitting down.

- d4103 Sitting: Getting into and out of a seated position and changing body position from sitting down to any other position, such as standing up or lying down. Inclusions: getting into a seated position with bent legs or cross-legged; getting into a sitting position with feet supported or unsupported.

- d4104 Standing: Getting into and out of a standing position or changing body position from a standing to any other position, such as lying down or sitting down.

• - d460 Moving around in different locations. Walking and moving around in various places and situations, such as walking between rooms in a house, within a building, or down the street of a town...
  • - d4600 Moving around within the home: Walking and moving around in one's home, within a room, between rooms, and around the whole residence or living area. Inclusions: moving from floor to floor, on an attached balcony, courtyard, porch or garden,
  • - d4601 Moving around within buildings other than home: Walking and moving around within buildings other than one's residence, such as moving around other people's homes, other private buildings, community and private or public buildings and enclosed areas. Inclusions: moving through all parts of buildings and enclosed areas, between floors, inside, outside and around buildings, both public and private,
  • - d4602 Moving around outside the home and other buildings: Walking and moving around close to or far from one's home and other buildings, without the use of transportation, public or private such as walking for short or long distances around a town or village. Inclusions: walking or moving down streets in the neighbourhood, town, village or city; moving between cities and further distances, without using transportation.
• - d470 Using transportation: Using transportation to move around as a passenger, such as being driven in a car or bus... or private or public taxi bus, train, tram, subway, boat or aircraft.
• - d475 Driving: Being in control of and moving a vehicle or the animal that draws it, travelling under one's own direction or having at one's disposal any form of transportation, such as a car, bicycle, boat or animal powered vehicle.

1. The evidence in relation to the Applicant's functional capacity for mobility may be summarised as follows:[50]

- he can walk with normal gait throughout his home, yard, neighbourhood, and town independently.

- he can transfer from lying to a seated position independently,

- he can transfer to and from a seated to a standing position independently (including a chair, lounge and toilet), but may experience some stiffness and an initial limp after being seated for a prolonged period,

- he is able to stand, but prolonged periods of standing have the potential to aggravate the Applicant's neurological impairments,

- during flare-ups of his neurological impairments, he experiences discomfort and pain in movement, but can maintain his independence by regulating his movements with periods of rest and reduced activity,

- he may experience aggravation of his neurological impairments when walking up his driveway, due to its steep gradient,

- there are three self-reported incidents over the past 10 years of the Applicant losing sensation in his lower extremities resulting in him falling when attempting to transfer from bed to a standing position. The details of these incidents are vague. They do not appear to have resulted in the attendance of medical services or admissions to hospital,

- he maintains a regular home- and gym-based exercise program to maintain and develop musculoskeletal function. This exercise regime has been developed in consultation with his osteopath and physiotherapist,

- he has difficulty maintaining balance using one exit from the back of his house into the backyard because it does not have a step or rail (and does not appear to comply with building standards),

- he can usually carry weights of up to 5kgs. He can bend and stretch to reach all internal cupboards,

- he owns and regularly drives his own car. His drivers license has no impairment related conditions or restrictions. His car has no impairment related modifications, and he does not use any generally available or specialist seating aids. He is usually able to drive for period of up to one-hour without difficulty, but during flare-ups of his neurological impairments he may not be able to drive for periods longer than 10minutes,

- he does not use any mobility aids, such as a walking stick or walker. His home has no impairment related modifications,

- there are few public transport options in the Applicant's neighbourhood. The closest bus stop is over one kilometre away. He does not use this bus service, preferring to drive himself to town and his various appointments.

1. I make these findings.
2. Having regard to this evidence, I turn to consider Rule 5.8. I am not satisfied that this Rule is engaged in this case. The Applicant can perform the tasks and actions involved in the mobility life activity area without assistive technology, equipment or home modifications, and he does not usually require physical assistance, guidance, supervision or prompting from other people to do so.
3. I now turn to consider if the Applicant's impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions involved in the mobility life activity area otherwise than in the circumstances specified in the Rule.
4. I am not satisfied that he does.
5. Generally, the Applicant has substantial functional capacity to perform the tasks and actions involved in the mobility life activity area. He can sit, stand and perform all transfers from a sitting to standing position independently. He can walk independently around his home, yard, neighbourhood and town. He can lift and carry weights of up to 5kg. He can bend and stretch to reach all internal cupboards. He owns and drives his own car.
6. I am satisfied that the Applicant's functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions in the mobility life activity area is affected by the episodic flare-up of his neurological conditions. During these periods, he will experience a degree of discomfort and pain in the performance of these tasks, it may take him longer than usual to perform them, and he may modify the way that they are done (such as by avoiding some tasks and actions, limiting the duration of some activities, and by taking rest breaks). However, on the evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that the degree of difficulty he experiences in the performance of these tasks and actions is more than moderate, for the same reasons I have stated with respect to self-care.
7. First, the Applicant remains functionally independent with all mobility tasks and actions despite the degree of difficulty he encounters during flare-ups.
8. Second, in my opinion, the Applicant's functional capacity is to be assessed longitudinally, not cross-sectionally on a 'good' or a 'bad' day. While I give weight to the Applicant's evidence that he experiences recurring flare-ups of his neurological impairments, and that this results in a temporary reduction in functional capacity, I am not satisfied that the cumulative effect of these flare-ups is to substantially reduce his overall functional capacity for mobility. He can manage the ups and downs in his functional capacity with moderate difficulty.
9. I therefore conclude that the Applicant does not experience substantially reduced functional capacity for mobility.

Conclusion with respect to the paragraph 24(1)(c) requirement

1. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant does not experience substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake the tasks and actions involved in any one of the paragraph 24(1)(c) life activity areas. He therefore cannot meet the disability requirements for access to the NDIS.
2. There is therefore no utility in considering whether he meets the paragraph 24(1)(d) and (e) disability requirements.

Does the Applicant meet the early intervention requirements?

1. The early intervention requirements are found in s 25 of the Act and Part 6 of the Becoming a Participant Rules.
2. Section 25 (as in force prior to 3 October 2024) provided (relevantly):

25 Early intervention requirements > > (1) A person meets the early intervention requirements if: > > (a) the person:

(i) has one or more identified intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent; or

(ii) has one or more identified impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable and that are, or are likely to be, permanent; ...

(b) the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by reducing the person's future needs for supports in relation to disability; and

(c) the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by:

(i) mitigating or alleviating the impact of the person's impairment upon the functional capacity of the person to undertake communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self-management; or

(ii) preventing the deterioration of such functional capacity; or

(iii) improving such functional capacity; or

(iv) strengthening the sustainability of informal supports available to the person, including through building the capacity of the person's carer.

Note: In certain circumstances, a person with a degenerative condition could meet the early intervention requirements and therefore become a participant.

1(A) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii), an impairment or impairments that are episodic or fluctuating may be taken to be permanent despite the episodic or fluctuating nature of the impairments.

...

(3) Despite subsection (1) ..., the person does not meet the early intervention requirements if the CEO is satisfied that early intervention support for the person is not most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or through systems of service delivery or support services offered:

(a) as part of a universal service obligation; or

(b) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.

1. Rules 6.4 to 6.7 of the Becoming a Participant Rules deal with the question of when an impairment is permanent, or likely to be permanent for the purposes of the early intervention requirements. These Rules are essentially the same as Rules 5.4 to 5.7 except that Rule 6.5 does not contain the words "including their psychosocial functioning".
2. Rules 6.8 and 6.9 of the Becoming a Participant Rules deal with the question of whether the provision of early intervention supports is likely to benefit the person:

Deciding whether provision of early intervention supports is likely to benefit the person > > 6.8 ... the main way in which the CEO can determine whether the provision of early intervention supports is likely to benefit the person ... is to consider evidence going to those matters, as indicated in paragraph 6.9 below.... > > Where evidence is required > > 6.9. In deciding whether provision of early intervention supports is likely to benefit the person ... it is expected that the CEO would consider:

(a) the likely trajectory and impact of the person's impairment over time; and

(b) the potential benefits of early intervention on the impact of the impairment on the person's functional capacity and in reducing their future needs for supports; and

(c) evidence from a range of sources, such as information provided by the person with disability or their family members or carers. The CEO may also in some cases seek expert opinion.

1. The Applicant applies for access to the NDIS on the basis that he meets the early intervention requirements, in the alternative to the disability requirements. However, with respect to the Applicant, this is to grasp at a straw. His case has no substantive form in relation to the early intervention requirements.
2. With respect to the paragraph 25(1)(a) requirements, for the reasons stated in relation to the paragraphs 24(1)(a) and (b) requirements, I accept that the Applicant has permanent impairments of global and specific mental function, which are impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable, and permanent neurological impairments.
3. These impairments are derivative of c-PTSD, SIJ dysfunction, and PN. These are long-standing diagnoses in relation to which the Applicant receives ongoing pharmacological and cognitive treatment from medical and allied health professionals. This treatment is also of long-standing.
4. The Applicant's ongoing treatment for his health conditions assists in the management of the impairments that are derivative of these. On the evidence before me, this treatment is not forecast to change in any substantive way. It is unlikely that it will result in the remedy of these impairments, although they may improve and fluctuate in response to this treatment.
5. Against this backdrop, with respect to the paragraph 25(1)(b) and (c) early intervention requirements, the Applicant bears a threshold practical onus of identifying with reasonable precision the early intervention supports that would have the effects particularised in those paragraphs.[51] Although this is an 'access' not a 'supports' case, it is necessary to know what specific early intervention supports the Applicant contends would have any of those beneficial effects in order to be able to undertake a sensible analysis of these requirements.
6. The Applicant has not identified any specific early intervention supports he contends would have the beneficial effects specified in paragraphs 25(1)(b) and (c). Nor do any supports of this nature arise in any of the evidence that is before me. None of the medical or allied health reports in evidence identify any form of early intervention support that is recommended for the Applicant. It is therefore not open to me to find that that the requirements of these paragraphs are met.
7. Having regard to this, paragraph 25(1)(c) is not reached (no early intervention supports are identified in the evidence that are appropriately provided by any system of support).
8. For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Applicant does not meet the early intervention requirements for access to the NDIS.

1. For the foregoing reasons, the decision under review is affirmed.

[1] This proceeding commenced before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in accordance with the power conferred by s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The AAT was abolished and replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) with effect from 14 October 2024. By operation of Item 24 in Schedule 16 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Act 2024 (Cth) any proceeding which was not determined by 14 October 2024 continues in the ART and is to be determined by the application of the provisions of the ART Act.

[2] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; 24 ALR 577 at 589

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

[4] Joint Tender Bundle, Tab T14, page 150.

[5] The requirement for "permanence" of an impairment does not apply for the purpose of the early intervention requirement in the case of a child with a developmental delay: subparagraph 25(1)(a)(iii).

[6] Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544; 233 FCR 201 (Mulligan) at [50]

[7] The NDIS was designed to fund direct supports for persons with significant disabilities who are assessed as needing such support; Mulligan at [53] referencing clause 24 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013, and recommendation 3.2 of the Productivity Commission's Inquiry Report, Disability Care and Support, No. 54, 31 July 2011.

[10] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 (Davis) at [82].

[11] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No.2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Drake No. 2) at [644-5].

[12] Applying to access the NDIS | NDIS

[13] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 (Davis) at [60]

[14] Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165 (2015); 150 ALD 11 at [68]; HPSC and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 727 at [85]; National Disability Insurance Agency v Lampard [2025] FCAFC 139 at [31] - [32].

[15] Hearing Tender Bundle, Tab T14, page 152.

[19] National Disability Insurance Agency, Applying to the NDIS Pre Legislative Changes, 14 October 2024

[21] World Health Organisation, (2011), International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, Geneva: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)

[22] World Health Organisation (2002), Towards a Common Language for Disability, Functioning and Health, ICF, Geneva, WHO/EIP/GPE/CAS/0.1.3 (WHO (2002) at page 2.

[24] DQKZ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 2276 at [144] - [149]. I adopt what I have said there for present purposes without repeating it.

[32] As this is not in issue it is sufficient to point to the evidence of Ms C Cummings (independent Occupational Therapist) in relation to these life activity areas, which I accept: Joint Tender Bundle, Tab D7, pages 438 - 446.

[33] Burrows and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 607.

[34] T B Ustun, N Kostanjsek, S Chatterji and J Rehm (eds) Measuring Health and Disability, Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), World Health Organisation, 2010.

[36] Ibid at page 38; see also World Health Organisation, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, Geneva, 2001 at page 22.

[40] See also my decision in Foster and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 718 (Foster (on remittal)) at [64] and [91].

[41] Drake (No.2) at pages 643 - 645.

[42] Mulligan and National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544; (2015) 233 FCR 201 at [55].

[43] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11; (2023) 295 FCR 521

[44] Foster and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS [2025] ARTA 718 (Foster on remittal) at [83]

[47] This summary is taken principally from the Applicant's response to the Agency's targeted questions, Joint Tender Bundle, Tab C25 page 361-362, the Applicant's oral evidence, and the Applicant's self-report and clinical observations made by Ms C Cummings, Independent Occupational Therapist, in her report, Joint Tender Bundle, Tab D7.

[48] Coffey and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 634 at [69] - [70].

[51] National Disability Insurance Agency v Jones [2025] FCA 877 at [24]