Decision: Pursuant to s 101 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the application for review of the internal review decision dated 11 February 2025 is dismissed.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME - Practice and Procedure - application for dismissal of application for review - review of decision not to conduct plan reassessment - subsequent decision of the CEO to conduct a plan reassessment - Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s101(1) - review application dismissed

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

Budd and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] AATA 2023

Mr Keeden Waller, by his Plan Nominee and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 169

Re DZXP, KRQD and QJJS and Innovation and Science Australia [2017] AATA 576

Re Kristoffersen and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 524

Re Williams and Australian Electoral Commission [1995] AATA 160

These reasons were delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing held on 12 December 2025. They have been prepared from the audio recording of the oral reasons given, edited only to correct matters of grammar, infelicity of expression, add headings and relevant footnotes.

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency regarding the applicant's request for a reassessment of his participant plan. The respondent seeks that the application be dismissed pursuant to s 101 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act)
2. In the circumstances, I have determined that the review application should be dismissed.
3. I am satisfied that continuing with this review application would serve no practical purpose and therefore I am prepared to dismiss the application pursuant to section 101 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
4. My reasons are as follows.
5. The applicant is a 13-year-old participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
6. On the 25th of September 2024, the applicant requested a reassessment of his plan pursuant to section 48 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the 'NDIS Act').
7. The Agency did not make a decision on that application within the statutory time frame of 21 days.
8. As a result, the legislation deemed that the agency decided not to conduct a reassessment and internal review of that deemed refusal occurred on the 11th of February 2025.
9. The internal reviewer decided not to conduct a reassessment.
10. It is that decision, namely the decision refusing to conduct a reassessment, that the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review.
11. However, circumstances have changed since the review application was lodged.
12. On or around 3 July 2025, the agency did conduct a plan reassessment.
13. This resulted in the approval of a new plan for the applicant for the period 3 July 2025 to 2 July 2026.
14. On 19 August 2025, the respondent filed a document entitled 'Respondent's Submissions on Jurisdiction'.
15. While framed as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the substance of the submission is really that the application should be dismissed because it lacks utility in circumstances where reassessment of the plan has now occurred.[1]
16. In my view, this is properly characterised as an application for dismissal under s 101 of the ART Act. That section permits, among other things, the Tribunal to dismiss an application if satisfied that the application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.
17. It is well established that the power to summarily dismiss an application must be approached with caution and not exercised lightly[2], and that for to determine that an application has no real prospect of success, there must be a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceeding if it were allowed to go to a hearing in the ordinary way.[3]
18. In this case, it is important to note that the NDIS Act creates a two-stage process in relation to plan reassessments.
19. The first stage is the decision whether to undertake a reassessment according to the legislative regime contained in the NDIS Act.
20. If a reassessment is to occur, the process of determining which supports should be included in the plan begins only after a decision to reassess the plan has been made. That is the second stage.
21. That is the legislative scheme that operates, even though, as a matter of practicality, it may be that in practice both decisions are made contemporaneously or at very least in very close proximity to each other.
22. The application currently before the Tribunal concerns only the first stage, that is the refusal to reassess the plan. In circumstances where the agency conducted a reassessment on 3 July 2025, the outcome that the applicant sought to achieve through these proceedings has now occurred. Put another way, the applicant has now obtained the reassessment that was sought.
23. I have separately considered whether the respondent has acted impermissibly by conducting a reassessment whilst these proceedings were on foot. In this regard I note that s 31 of the ART Act restricts a decision maker from altering a decision that is legally before the Tribunal outside of the Tribunal process.
24. However, I find that the decision made on 3 July 2025 was a fresh decision to reassess made under section 48 of the NDIS Act. It did not, in my view, involve altering the internal review decision of 11th February 2025.
25. Insofar as section 31 of the ART Act defines 'altering', I am satisfied that the decision of 3 July 2025 was an independent exercise of the CEOs power to facilitate a reassessment. That is, it superseded the previous refusal but did not vary or substitute the internal review decision itself.
26. Consequently, I am satisfied the respondent was entitled to make that decision and note that in any event, the applicant has sought eternal review of the decision in relation to the statement of participants supports included in that plan that followed the reassessment.
27. The applicant's mother explained today that a decision that was made, on internal review, to affirm that decision on 3 December 2025. The applicant is still within time to seek a review of that decision and his mother indicated that they intend to do so. I am satisfied that will enable them to pursue review of the decision in relation to the statement of participants supports.
28. Indeed, the respondent did not submit that the applicant would be in any way prevented from pursuing a review of the supports included in the applicant's most recent plan.
29. For these reasons, in relation to the current review, I have concluded that as the reassessment sought by the applicant has occurred, the review application has no further utility follows that there is no practical relief that the Tribunal can grant in any useful way.
30. Having regard to the objectives of the Tribunal contained in section 9 of the ART Act, I am satisfied that it's appropriate to dismiss the review application on the basis that it no longer lacks any utility. Accordingly, I am satisfied there is no utility in proceeding with a review of a refusal to do something which has now been done. In those circumstances I will dismiss the review application pursuant to section 101 of the ART Act.

1. I certify that the preceding thirty (30) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Robertson

..........................[SGD].........................

The applicant's mother represented the applicant

[1] See, generally, Mr Keeden Waller, by his Plan Nominee and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 169. See also Budd and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] AATA 2023; Re Williams and Australian Electoral Commission [1995] AATA 160; Re DZXP, KRQD and QJJS and Innovation and Science Australia [2017] AATA 576, [33] - [34].

[2] Re Kristoffersen and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 524, [10].

[3] Re Kristoffersen and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 524, [10].