101. Having regard to these established principles, the questions the Tribunal must pose and answer in relation to the dismissal question are as follows: > > i. has the Applicant failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal within a reasonable time? > > ii. has the Applicant failed to proceed, generally, with these applications within a reasonable time? > > iii. if the answer to "i" and "ii" is "yes": > > (a) has the Applicant been given a further opportunity to comply with the Tribunal's orders and proceed with [their] applications? > > (b) is there some alternative course, other than dismissal, which would provide an adequate remedy in relation to the Applicant's default? > > (c) has the Applicant been given a reasonable opportunity to explain [their] default, and make submissions as to why the discretion should not be exercised? > > iv. Having regard to these considerations, how should the discretion be exercised?

1. The Mother failed to comply with my direction dated 24 November 2025 which required her to provide information which would allow the Tribunal to consider how to support her participation at hearing. This direction effectively re-stated an earlier request for information by email dated 11 November 2025.
2. The Mother was provided 3 days to respond to the email and 2 days to respond to direction, with a further 10 intervening days between the email and direction.
3. During the relevant period (11 November to 26 November 2025), the Mother sent 15 emails to registry, most of which were multiple pages long.
4. The Mother was required to provide a brief response to five questions, as outlined in my first decision at [39] and [44]. I am satisfied she had reasonable time to comply given the nature of the request, her proven capacity to communicate in writing and her ongoing engagement with the Tribunal during the relevant period.
5. The first question is answered in the affirmative.

1. The application has been before the Tribunal for since January 2025.
2. On the 29 August 2025, the parties were advised by notice that the matter had been listed for hearing by video on 3 and 4 December 2025. On 11 November 2025, I extended the hearing to four days, commencing on 2 December 2025 to allow for more breaks and greater flexibility in the hearing schedule if required.
3. Save for the issue of representation and participation at hearing, I consider the matter ready to proceed to hearing as each party has filed evidence and a statement in support of their respective positions and had the opportunity to attempt resolution through the alternative dispute resolution pathway. Whilst the Respondent appears to have conceded some supports that were previously in dispute, reflected in the increased funding included in the Applicant's most recent plan dated 29 November 2025, several supports remain in dispute.
4. Dr Horvath suggests in her letter dated 20 November 2025, that with trauma informed accommodations, the Mother is "fully capable of self-representation". Dr Horvath recommended reliance on written communication wherever possible, clearly scheduled processes, provision of transcripts, avoidance of unexpected contact or pressure, and allowing adequate time for the Applicant to review material.
5. Whilst Registry does not provide free transcripts, I am satisfied the Tribunal's processes have provided for significant written communication, scheduled processes and adequate time for the Applicant to review material, noting her strong writing capacity. I have previously acknowledged the circumstances leading up to the directions hearing on 7 November 2025 in my first decision at [10] to [24] which accounts for one occasion of unexpected contact. Despite Dr Horvath expressing confidence that the Mother is "fully capable of self-representation", she goes on to state "[a]ny participation in oral hearings at this time, particularly without predictable structure or adequate preparation time, is likely to worsen her mental state further".
6. It is unclear whether Dr Horvath was aware at the time of writing her letter that the Mother actively participated in the directions hearing on 1 October 2025 and that the second Tribunal Member had carefully explained the hearing process in plain English.
7. Ms Saluja has not provided the Tribunal with any indication when the Mother might be medically fit or capable of representing her daughter at hearing. Ms Saluja does not identify a pathway forward except for a hearing 'on the papers', which both her and Dr Horvath seem to assume is at the sole discretion of the Tribunal. The tenor of both Dr Horvath and Ms Saluja's letters suggest they do not appreciate the importance of both parties having an opportunity to present their case and to test the evidence at hearing.
8. Dr Horvath states in her letter dated 20 November 2025 that the Applicant's sisters, aged 20 and 22, are "not in a position" to represent the Applicant but she does not explain why. The Mother declined to provide a copy of Ms Saluja's curriculum vitae and neither practitioner was available to speak to me at the dismissal hearing. In these circumstances, I cannot give more than limited weight to the assertions and opinions contained in their letters.
9. I consider the recent increase to the Applicant's NDIS funding and her right to seek internal and external review should those additional supports prove to be insufficient weigh against any prejudice she might experience by the dismissal of her current application. I note that the Applicant is now of an age where her participation in reassessments (and reviews) should be encouraged, given the increased decision-making that will accompany her transition into adulthood in the next two years.
10. I am satisfied that significant efforts have been made to identify and understand the Mother's requested adjustments since 1 October 2025, noting that the hearing cannot be conducted on the papers. I am satisfied that despite these efforts and clear confirmation from the Tribunal that we can accommodate the adjustments requested to date, the Mother had not identified any additional adjustments, has declined referrals to Legal Aid, has stated the Applicant does not want to participate and has been unwilling or unable to identify a support person, such as the Applicant's adult sister, to assist at hearing.
11. During the same period, the Mother has actively engaged with the Tribunal, providing extensive and relatively sophisticated written submissions which reference legislative provisions. However, she has not undertaken the relatively simple step of answering the questions contained in my email and directions.
12. Despite the application being 'hearing ready', the Mother's refusal or inability to engage with these issues or accept help from other people means the hearing cannot proceed.
13. The second question is answered in the affirmative.

1. The Tribunal has attempted to explore alternative options for the conduct of the hearing including the Applicant appearing herself (which would have involved consideration of alternative adjustments to account for her age and disability), a legal representative taking over the case, differing levels of participation by the Mother at hearing or another support person attending the hearing to either represent the Applicant or support the Mother to represent the Applicant. These options were all explored again at the dismissal hearing without success.
2. The Mother was notified on the 3 December 2025 of the dismissal hearing and she has made extensive submissions in subsequent emails. The Mother submits the Applicant is "not clinically able to participate in oral or video hearing processes, including cross examination". The mother did not point to any evidence in support of her contention that the Applicant cannot participate in some way. A recent report by the Applicant's treating speech pathologist confirms the Applicant commenced sessions with her in June 2025.[6] In a letter dated 25 June 2025, the Applicant's BSP wrote:

I have been working with [the Applicant] since April 2024 and continue to provide weekly therapeutic support through [organisation]. Over the course of our therapeutic relationship, I have supported [the Applicant] in developing strategies to manage her emotional regulation, identify and express emotions appropriately, and reduce oppositional behaviours. A key component of our work also focuses on building the foundational skills required for future employment and daily functioning.[7]

3. During the directions hearing on 7 November 2025, I indicated I could adopt a flexible approach if the Applicant indicated a willingness to participate at hearing. This would not necessarily include cross examination.
4. The Mother has provided extensive submissions, including those in her email dated 3 December 2025:

Non attendance is not abandonment of the proceeding: it is incapacity to participate safely, not unwillingness to engage. At all times, the representative has participated where reasonably possible, and has continued to correspond in writing to maintain procedural engagement, seeking clarity, safety, and accommodation decisions on behalf of a minor whose voice has been excluded from prior hearings.

Dismissal for non attendance, or for alleged failure to prosecute, in circumstances of medical incapacity would cause irreversible prejudice to the Applicant, including loss of review rights and disruption to therapeutic stability.

6. I do not accept that the application is facing dismissal because of the Applicant's or Mother's medical incapacity and/or disability. Unfortunately, however, the application is facing dismissal because the Mother has not responded in any practical manner to the questions and offers of assistance which would help progress this matter to hearing.
7. The third set of questions are answered in the affirmative.

1. Having regard to s 9 of the ART Act, the exploration of alternative options over several weeks to secure representation or participation of the Applicant at hearing and the lack of any indication about when the current situation might change or improve with respect to the Mother's inability or unwillingness to attend a hearing, I am not satisfied this application has any prospect of resolution at hearing. For these reasons, it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application.

1. I am satisfied the Mother, on behalf of the Applicant, has failed to proceed with the application in a reasonable time and has not complied with a direction aimed at facilitating and supporting her participation at hearing including consideration of any additional requested adjustments. The Applicant's application is review is dismissed pursuant to section 100 of the ART Act.
2. I note that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) provides for periodic (usually annually) and unscheduled reassessments of plans and that the Applicant may raise concerns about the adequacy of her plan at any time.[8]

1. It is unnecessary to deal with this application, as I have dismissed the substantive application for review.

1. The Applicant's second recusal application is refused.
2. The Applicant's application for review is dismissed pursuant to section 100 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

[2] See [39] of SJLD and The CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2562 ("first decision").

[3] See [44 - 45] of the first decision.

[4] On 8 July 2025, the first Tribunal Member made a determination that in accordance with s 106(2) of the ART Act, and in the absence of the consent from both parties, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the issues in dispute could be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.

[6] A29 of Respondent Hearing Bundle, Letter of speech pathologist, dated 13 June 2025.

[7] A31 of Respondent Hearing Bundle, Letter of BSP, dated 15 June 2025.