1. I consider it useful to provide a brief overview of the procedural background to this application.
2. On 8 July 2025, a Member of the Tribunal (first Member) held a directions hearing by telephone. The Tribunal understands the Mother did not appear. At the conclusion of the procedural hearing, the Member made a determination that in accordance with s 106(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (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. The Tribunal directed that the parties would be required to appear at the substantive hearing of the application and proceeded to make directions for the exchange of documents including the filing of a joint hearing bundle by 31 October 2025.
3. On 1 October 2025, another Member of the Tribunal (second Member) held a directions hearing by telephone. Both parties attended. The Member did not make any directions following the hearing. The Tribunal understands the matter was constituted to the second Member sometime prior to the directions hearing.
4. On 27 October 2025, seemingly in response to correspondence from the Mother, the second Member gave the following direction:
   1. On or before 7 November 2025, the Respondent must give to the Applicant and the Tribunal written submissions addressing why the Respondent considers the issues cannot be adequately determined in the absence of the parties for the purpose of section 106(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
5. This direction does not appear on the Tribunal's case management system; however the Respondent's lawyer provided me with a copy.
6. On 31 October 2025, the second Member became unavailable to hear the substantive application. The Deputy President reconstituted the matter to me as a Member with availability to hear the application for review on the listed hearing dates, being 3 and 4 December 2025. At 3:58pm, Registry sent a listing notice to the parties informing them the matter had been reconstituted to a new member.
7. On 5 November 2025, at 10:24am, the Respondent provided submissions regarding s106 of the ART Act and why the Respondent does not consent to a hearing 'on the papers' (footnotes omitted).

Respondent's Position > > 7. Section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) provides the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing. Relevantly, the Tribunal may make its decision in the proceeding in relation to the application after considering the documents and things given to the Tribunal and without holding the hearing of the proceeding if: > > a. all of the parties to the proceeding consent to the proceeding being determined without the hearing of the proceeding; and > > b. it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. > > 8.The Respondent submits the issues for determination in the proceeding cannot be adequately determined without the parties present for the following reasons: > > a. There are 17 disputed supports, including a request for home modifications. > > b. The estimated value of the requested supports, excluding the home modifications is approximately $235,225 for a 12-month period. > > c. There is voluminous written material before the Tribunal. > > d. There are inconsistencies in the reports and recommendations provided by the Applicant's allied health practitioners. Some providers have made recommendations for supports that are outside their scope of practice. > > e. There are gaps in the Applicant's evidence in relation to the disputed supports. > > 9. The Respondent submits the issues in dispute cannot be adequately determined without the oral evidence of the Applicant's treating practitioners who have made recommendations for these supports. Further, both parties should have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposing parties, noting the significant scope of the issues for determination. The Tribunal is also likely to be assisted by the focused submissions of the parties as to the application of the relevant legislative provisions to the evidence presented to the Tribunal. > > 10. In addition, pursuant to s 55 of the ART Act, the Tribunal must ensure that each party to a proceeding in the Tribunal is given a reasonable opportunity to present their case including making submissions and adducing evidence. The Respondent submits the value of the supports in dispute is significant and noting its duty to ensure the sustainability of National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Respondent submits it ought to be afforded an opportunity to present its case before the Tribunal. > > Conclusion > > 11. For the reasons set out at paragraphs [8] to [10], the Respondent does not consent for the matter to be determined without a hearing. The Respondent submits the issues cannot be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. Section 106(2) of the ART Act provides for a power to determine a matter on the papers only if both parties consent. As the Respondent does not consent, that power is not enlivened. > > ...

8. Later the same day, at 2:18pm, the Mother sent a lengthy email which raised several concerns with the Respondent's position. In particular, she claimed:

The Respondent asserts that the Tribunal's power under section 106(2) is not enlivened without its consent. That interpretation is incorrect. > > While subsection 106(1)(a) refers to consent, subsection 106(2)(b) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the matter can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. The Tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider adequacy and fairness. Consent is a procedural factor, not a jurisdictional bar. > > The Tribunal may, where a party's refusal is unreasonable or inconsistent with procedural fairness, determine that proceeding on the papers is the only effective means to ensure equitable access to justice, particularly in cases of medical incapacity. > > The Respondent cannot unilaterally prevent that assessment.

9. The Mother also claimed that she was "medically unfit to participate in an oral hearing".
10. Section 106(2) of the Act first requires the consent of both parties. If this condition is met, the Tribunal must then consider and be satisfied that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined without a hearing. Although s 106(2)(a) is not satisfied, I do not consider that an application involving a significant number of disputed supports can be adequately determined on the papers, particularly when it involves a young person.
11. Later that evening, at 6:15pm, the Mother wrote to registry raising concerns about the Respondent's non-compliance with the first Member's directions, namely the filing of a joint hearing bundle by 31 October 2025.
12. On 6 November 2025 at 12:59pm, I first became aware of the correspondence from both parties the previous day. As the matter was listed for final hearing on 3 and 4 December 2025, I instructed Registry at 1:04pm to list an urgent direction hearing the following day at 11am Sydney time, due to limited availability the following week. I could see on our case management directions hearing that the Mother had attended a telephone directions hearings on 1 October 2025.
13. Registry sent a listing notice at 4:20pm.
14. At 4:24pm, the Respondent wrote to Registry, copying the Mother, as follows:

We refer to the attached email from the Applicant's representative. We also attach a copy of the Tribunal's direction dated 8 July 2025. > > We confirm on 12 September 2025, the Respondent sought amended directions to progress the matter, and a copy of the correspondence is attached. > > Relevantly, on 5 September 2025, the Respondent requested an extension of time until 12 September 2025 to submit a copy of the report Independent Medical Assessment as there was delay in obtaining the report. On 12 September 2025, the Respondent sought a further extension of time and amended directions as the assessor required more time to complete the report. The matter was listed on 1 October 2025 for a non-compliance direction hearing in relation to Direction (5). We note, the remaining directions were not addressed by the Tribunal. > > We confirm the Respondent has since submitted its Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions and the report of the Independent Medical Assessment. In addition, we confirm the Applicant provided further evidence in compliance with direction (8) however on 4 November 2025. Accordingly, the Respondent is preparing the Joint Tender Bundle and hearing plan, and we respectfully seek clarification from the Tribunal as to whether an extension has been granted in respect of the proposed direction at (9). That is, the parties are to confer, and the Respondent is to submit a Joint Tender Bundle and Witness Schedule by 21 November 2025. > > The Respondent notes the Applicant's objections to the request for the amended directions and submits the proposed amendments do not prejudice the progress of the matter. The matter remains on track to proceed to hearing as listed on 3 and 4 December 2025

1. On 7 November, I held a directions hearing. Shortly before the listed hearing, I realised I had incorrectly requested a directions hearing by telephone rather than by video, which is my usual practice in constituted matters. I asked an associate to send a video link to the parties and to contact the Mother by telephone to invite her to participate by video.
2. The associate informed me just prior to hearing that the Mother had indicated she would be attending hospital that day and was unaware of the listing notice. She attended the hearing by telephone.
3. The directions hearing can be summarised as follows:
   • At the commencement of the hearing, I indicated that I understood there had been limited notice, however I thought it was important to touch base quickly so that I could introduce myself and respond to the Mother's concerns.
   • The Mother indicated she did not wish to attend the hearing by video because she was attending surgery in an hour's time. She indicated she was experiencing "horrific PTSD symptoms", that it is on file she shouldn't be attending "live hearings" and it was a "disgusting way to handle an administrative review". The hearing proceeded by telephone and video.
   • I apologised for the short notice. I also explained that the matter had recently been re-constituted to me which meant I would be the Member hearing the application for review.
   • I confirmed my understanding that the Respondent had not consented to a hearing on the papers. I also indicated I did not believe the matter could be adequately determined without a hearing and wanted to ensure there was a clear timetable in place.
   • I indicated I wanted to explore what arrangements would support the Mother's participation at hearing and to check whether the Applicant herself would like to participate, noting the importance of young people having a voice in proceedings which affect them. I indicated I could be very flexible in terms of how the Applicant may like to participate.
   • At this point (approximately 5 minutes into the hearing) the Mother requested to adjourn the hearing because she didn't have a support person and was stressed about her surgery involving general anaesthetic. She indicated lengthy documentation had been provided to the Tribunal about how the proceedings were causing psychological harm.
   • I indicated that I understood she would be having surgery later that day and the hearing did not need to take long. I indicated I had limited availability in the lead up to the hearing and intended to vary the date for the joint hearing bundle because of the delays associated with the IME. The Mother was unhappy with this decision.
   • The Mother again requested an adjournment because of her pending surgery, a lack of support and a failure to provide disability adjustments. I indicated that I would bring the matter back at a more convenient time to discuss those matters. However, I did not grant the request for an adjournment and confirmed I would vary the timetable to ensure the matter could proceed to hearing.
   • Prior to the next directions hearing, I asked the Mother to consider whether one of the Applicant's adult sisters may be able to assist, given the matters raised by the Mother in her recent written correspondence and during the directions hearing.
   • The Mother claimed there was no one else to help. She also indicated she wanted more time to get a support person to assist her at the directions hearing so it was an accessible process. She claimed previous requests for adjustments had been refused by the Tribunal.
   • I indicated I could hold a further direction hearing the following Tuesday. The Mother was agreeable and indicated she would attend.
   • Prior to hanging up (after 15 minutes) the Mother claimed that adjusting the date for the filing of the joint hearing bundle would cause prejudice and she wanted that on the record.
4. After the Mother left the hearing, the Tribunal briefly discussed the following matters with the Respondent over a period of approximately 10 minutes:
   • Confirmation that the Applicant had filed a response to the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC).
   • The Respondent's lawyer explained the IME report was provided after the Respondent's SOFIC was filed. The Respondent indicated they could provide an updated statement if required.
   • The Tribunal checked the Respondent had squarely raised any s34(1)(aa) issues in its SOFIC. The Respondent confirmed they had.
   • The Tribunal checked whether the Applicant had received any legal advice. The Respondent was unsure. The Tribunal indicated it could arrange an urgent referral to Legal Aid.
   • The length of the hearing bundle.
   • The filing of the hearing bundle at least 2 weeks prior to hearing (and therefore a week earlier than the date proposed by the Respondent).
   • The likely number of witnesses. The Respondent indicated they had summonsed the Applicant's treating occupational therapist and behaviour support practitioner to give oral evidence.
   • The length of hearing. The Respondent indicated they had availability to start on the Tuesday and I indicated I also had availability on the Tuesday or Friday if a longer hearing time was required.
   • The importance of encouraging young applicants to participate in proceedings which affect them if they can.
   • The filing of a witness schedule closer to hearing, allowing more time for the parties to sort through logistics.
5. Later that day, I varied the timetable as follows:

The Tribunal vacates the previous directions and directs: > > 1.On or before 14 November 2025, the Respondent must give the Applicant and the Tribunal a joint bundle of relevant documents. > > 2.On or before 28 November 2025, the Respondent must give the Applicant and the Tribunal a joint witness list. > > Notation: One of the Applicant's adult sisters, another family member or a friend is welcome to attend the directions hearing by video on Tuesday 11 November 2025 at 10am (Sydney time) to discuss how they might be able to support the Applicant and her Mother's participation at final hearing.

6. A listing notice for the following Tuesday, 11 November at 10am (Sydney time) was sent to the parties. The email accompanying the directions invited the Applicant to confirm whether she would like a referral to Legal Aid for advice prior to hearing.

1. On 7 November 2025, at 11.29am, the Mother wrote to the Tribunal as follows:

Dear Sydney Reviews Team, > > I wish to formally record serious procedural and accessibility concerns in relation to this morning's hearing for Case 2025/0913. > > I received no prior notice of the hearing and only became aware of it through a phone call approximately ten minutes before it commenced. > > Despite explaining that I had surgery scheduled, no support, and that I was requesting an adjournment to enable proper preparation, the hearing was still conducted. > > I have not received any documentation or correspondence regarding this morning's listing, nor any formal notice of the matter being transferred to a different member. This has caused significant distress and denied me any fair opportunity to participate. > > It is already on file that I am not to attend live hearings and that I require specific accessibility accommodations, which were previously acknowledged by [second Member]. Despite this, I was asked to appear on video without discussion of adjustments or support. > > The member presiding today repeatedly spoke over me while I attempted to object to the matter proceeding without notice, and further insulted me by suggesting that my daughter "get someone else to represent her," including by asking whether my other daughters were available. > > This conduct was deeply inappropriate and discriminatory. My request for accommodations has long been based on documented health and accessibility needs. If I were a participant requiring wheelchair access, those accommodations would be implemented without hesitation; the refusal to extend the same respect in my situation constitutes ongoing discrimination and exclusion from meaningful participation in this process. > > No accessibility accommodations were made for this morning's hearing, and none were discussed or arranged for any future hearings. > > I also wish to record my formal objection to the issue of non-compliance raised during the hearing. The respondent has failed to lodge the required joint tender bundle, yet appears to be afforded additional leeway, which is inconsistent with procedural fairness. > > I request the following: > > 1. A full audio and written transcript of this morning's hearing, along with any file notes, orders, or directions issued; > > 2. Confirmation of the member who presided; > > 3. Copies of all notices or correspondence allegedly sent regarding the hearing and the transfer of the matter; > > 4. A review of this morning's proceedings on the grounds of procedural unfairness, lack of notice, and failure to provide required accessibility accommodations; and > > 5. That this matter be reassigned to a different member due to the prejudicial conduct, lack of procedural fairness, and the perceived disrespect shown during today's hearing. Continuing before the same member would reasonably give rise to apprehended bias and further prejudice. > > Please confirm that this correspondence will be placed on the record and escalated appropriately. > > Kind regards, > > [Mother] > > Representative for SJLD > > Case 2025/0913

2. I later discovered the Mother sent two emails immediately prior to the directions hearing. At 10:58 she wrote:

Dear Registry, > > I am writing in relation to a phone call I received this morning advising that a hearing was listed for today and that the matter has been transferred to a different member. I did not receive any notice of today's hearing, and I have no correspondence indicating a transfer or a new listing. > > It is not reasonable to expect my attendance without proper notice, particularly as I am self-represented and require support to participate effectively. > > It is not reasonable to host a hearing in which I cannot attend. I've been given no notice and I actually have surgery to attend at 12:30 pm today. I would appreciate an adjournment and an explanation at the least. > > Please confirm: > > 1.When and how any hearing notice and transfer notification were sent, including the method of service. > > 2.That today's listing will be vacated, with a new date set after proper notice. > > 3.The name of the new member and any revised timetable or directions that apply. > > Please place this email on the record as a formal objection to proceeding without reasonable notice or procedural fairness. I also request copies of any notices purportedly issued.

Dear Sydney Reviews Team, > > I am writing regarding a phone call I received this morning advising that a hearing was listed for today and that the matter has been transferred to a different member. I have not received any notice of this hearing, nor any correspondence confirming the transfer or listing details. > > It is procedurally unfair to expect attendance without notice, particularly as I am self-represented and require support to participate effectively. I also remind the Tribunal that it is already on file that I am not to attend live hearings due to accessibility needs, and that reasonable adjustments have not been implemented to accommodate this. > > If I am forced to attend this morning despite the lack of notice, I will need to make it clear on the record that: > > • I have surgery scheduled, > > • I am without support, and > > • This timing and lack of notice have placed me in an unfair and inaccessible position. > > Please ensure this correspondence is placed on the record as a formal objection to proceeding without proper notice or accessibility arrangements. > > I request confirmation of when and how any hearing notice and transfer notification were sent, and that today's listing be vacated and re-listed with appropriate procedural fairness. > > Kind regards, > > [Mother] > > Representative for SJLD

4. Following the directions hearing, the Mother sent a further 4 emails, including one directed to the President at 12:25pm, 2:33pm, 2:52pm and 3:36pm.
5. On the 10 November 2025, Registry sent the following email to the parties:

Dear Parties, > > The Tribunal understand from the Applicant's recent correspondence that she is seeking for the Member to recuse herself. > > By 4pm today, the Applicant may provide to the Tribunal and the Respondent: > > a. Any further grounds or reasons why the Member should recuse herself. > > b. Any medical evidence in support of her application. > > The Respondent may also provide any brief submissions by 4pm today. > > The Tribunal will re-list the directions hearings tomorrow as an interlocutory hearing (recusal) by video commencing at 10am. > > Kind regards

6. By email the same day, the Respondent indicated it would adopt a neutral position as to the constitution of the matter.
7. The Mother responded as follows:

Dear Tribunal, > > If the interlocutory hearing listed for 10:00 am today proceeds in my absence, I respectfully reserve my right of reply to any matters discussed or determined. > > As previously advised, I am medically unfit to participate in any live hearing at this time. The Tribunal already holds comprehensive medical and psychological evidence confirming this, including psychologist letters dated 24 June 2025, 16 July 2025, and 14 October 2025, the NDIS Clinical Summary Addendum dated 14 October 2025, and the hospital medical certificate confirming surgical admission and incapacity on 7 November 2025. > > The Tribunal has also been on notice of my disability related communication needs since at least my 17 April 2025 request for accommodations, and through subsequent Tribunal correspondence acknowledging those issues. > > Accordingly, if you proceed without me, I request that: > > 1. No substantive findings or directions be made without first providing me a reasonable opportunity to review the record and respond in writing, and > > 2. A complete transcript or audio record of any discussions today be provided to me, including that of 7 November 2025, for my review when medically able. > > This correspondence should be treated as confirmation of prior notice to the Tribunal and the Respondent of my medical limitations and accommodation needs. > > I also note that despite the Tribunal being fully on notice of this evidence, the matter has continued to proceed in a manner that has caused significant clinical and procedural concern. I remind the Tribunal of its obligations under: > > • Section 15 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, which requires the Tribunal to ensure accessibility and equitable participation for all users; > > • Section 33(1)(b) of the same Act, requiring that proceedings be conducted with as little formality and technicality as the circumstances permit; > > • Section 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), which requires reasonable adjustments to enable equal access for persons with disability; and > > • The Tribunal's own Commitment to Accessibility and Inclusion (October 2024), which affirms its duty to conduct trauma-informed, accessible processes for participants with disability. > > If the hearing proceeds today without those accommodations in place, it would not only contravene these obligations but may also constitute a further instance of disability discrimination, given the clear medical evidence, prior requests for adjustment, and multiple assurances that these needs were recognised. I ask that this be formally noted on the record and that no steps be taken until compliance with these statutory and policy duties can be ensured. > > Attachments and Evidence on File: > > I rely on all evidence already filed with the Tribunal, including (but not limited to) the following: > > • Psychologist letters: 6 Nov 2024, 24 Jun 2025, 16 Jul 2025, 14 Oct 2025 > > • NDIS Clinical Summary Addendum (14 Oct 2025) > > • Hospital Medical Certificate confirming surgical admission and incapacity (7 Nov 2025) > > • 17 Apr 2025 Disability Accommodation Request and accompanying correspondence > > • Tribunal correspondence confirming awareness of my disability-related communication needs and prior requests for accommodation (20 June, 31 July, and 7 October 2025) > > • All prior submissions, complaint responses, and NDIA/Tribunal letters already on the record. There has been mention of my surgeries as well. > > These materials collectively establish that the Tribunal and the Respondent have long been on notice of my disabilities, medical limitations, and need for reasonable accommodation. I have been completely transparent throughout this process. > > Any continuation without compliance with these obligations would risk further contravention of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the Tribunal's own Commitment to Accessibility and Inclusion (Oct 2024). > > I also note that a 4:00 pm deadline was set late yesterday afternoon. I was attending a hospital appointment at Robina Hospital with an orthopaedic specialist at that time and was therefore unable to compile or re-upload these materials before the deadline. > > This appointment today was separate from the surgery I underwent at Gold Coast University Hospital on 25 September 2025 and separate again to my surgery 7 November 2025. I manage complex and ongoing medical issues, multiple hospital referrals, and extraordinary disability-related caring responsibilities, which together require significant time and coordination. For transparency, I have attached a copy of the official hospital SMS reminder confirming the orthopaedic appointment. In any event, the evidence referred to here has already been filed with the Tribunal and the Respondent, and I am providing it again to ensure the record is complete. > > Kind regards, > > [Mother] > > Representative for SJLD

8. At the time of this decision, the Mother has sent at least 35 emails to the Tribunal since 7 November 2025.

1. The Mother did not attend the recusal hearing by video on 11 November 2025 at 10am Sydney time. The Tribunal also attempted to call her twice, but she did not pick up.
2. Prior to the hearing, I reviewed the documents provided by or referred to by the Mother in her email dated 10 November. These include:

(a) E1 - Letter dated 6 November 2024 from psychologist Ms Michelle Saluja > > (b) E2 - Email from Mother dated 17 April 2025 to Registry > > (c) E3 - Letter dated 24 June 2025 from psychologist Ms Saluja > > (d) E4 - Letter dated 16 July 2025 from psychologist Ms Saluja > > (e) E5 - Letter dated 14 October 2025 from psychologist Ms Saluja > > (f) E6 - Letter dated 14 October from psychologist Ms Saluja with clinical summary addendum > > (g) E7 - Feedback and complaint webform to Tribunal dated 20 June 2025 > > (h) E8 - Undated response from Melbourne registry to complaint. > > (i) E9 - Copy of General Counsel's response to complaint about first member dated 31 July 2025 > > (j) E10 - Copy of General Counsel's response to complaint about first member dated 7 October 2025. > > (k) E11 - Medical Certificate confirming the Mother was admitted to the Robina hospital on 7 November 2025 suffering from a medical condition. She was discharged on 7 November and it was anticipated she would be "unfit for duty up to 8.11.25 and including 8.11.25. This certificate is issued for the information of Employer".

3. The Tribunal asked the Respondent's laywer whether a support person had attended a Tribunal event with the Mother. The lawyer with carriage indicated the Mother did not have a support person at the case conference or at the second directions hearing on 1 October 2025.
4. On 14 October 2025, Ms Saluja wrote: "Given her current psychological state, [the Mother] is clinically unfit to participate in any further Tribunal hearing or oral examinations in any form".[4]
5. Ms Saluja did not suggest or recommend any adjustments except for a 'hearing on the papers'.
6. The Application was adjourned in the Mother's absence to 24 November 2025.
7. Registry sent the following email to the parties:

Dear Parties, > > The interlocutory hearing for recusal (by video) has been adjourned to Monday 24 November 2025 at 11am (Sydney time). > > In the interim and noting that any Tribunal Member will require this information prior to hearing, the Tribunal seeks clarification from the Applicant's representative as to her preferred level of participation at final hearing. The hearing time has been extended to four days, with availability to commence on Tuesday 2 December 2025 if required. This will allow for more breaks and greater flexibility in the timetable. > > The Tribunal requests that the Applicant's representative provide a response to the following questions by Friday 14 November 2025.

8. Would you like an urgent referral to Legal Aid?
9. Would you like a support person to attend the hearing with you or represent the Applicant at hearing? If so, please provide their name and a brief description of who they are and how you know them.
10. Whether you intend to call any witness to give oral evidence? If so, please provide their name, occupation, and role in the Applicant's life.
11. Whether the Applicant would like to give evidence, talk to the Tribunal, or participate in some other way so that her voice is heard in the application for review?
12. What is your preferred level of participation at the hearing from the following six options?:

1. Give oral evidence only (approximately 1 - 2 hours, with breaks) and not participate further. 2. Give oral evidence and observe the hearing. 3. Give oral evidence, observe the hearing, ask questions of other witnesses and/or make submissions. 4. Not give oral evidence but observe and/or ask questions and/or make submissions. (The Tribunal will explain how this may affect the weight given to your written evidence.) 5. Not participate at all. 6. Not proceed with your application / withdraw.

The Tribunal understands the Respondent requires the Applicant's Occupational Therapist and Behaviour Support Practitioner for questioning. The Respondent will also call the independent psychiatrist to give oral evidence. > > You may ask any witness questions at hearing. > > You may also provide a letter from your treating psychologist recommending any other adjustments that may support your participation at the hearing for the Tribunal's consideration. As explained, the Tribunal has determined that application cannot adequately be determined on the papers. > > Kind regards,

1. The Mother did not attend the recusal hearing by video on 24 November 2025 at 11am Sydney time. The Tribunal attempted to call her twice, but she did not answer her phone.
2. Having reviewed the documentation outlined at [34] carefully, I could ascertain the following requests for adjustments:

(a) A hearing 'on the papers' > > (b) The need for additional time to respond in high stress situations.[5] > > (c) The need for 'follow-up' in writing.[6]

3. A letter from her General Practitioner (GP), Dr Hannah Horvath dated 20 November 2025[7] indicated she has no concerns about the Mother's decision making capacity. Dr Horvath expressed concern that the Tribunal process has triggered a significant trauma response. She recommended reliance on written communication wherever possible, clearly scheduled processes, provision of transcripts, avoidance of unexpected contact or pressure, allowing adequate time for the Applicant to review material and "respecting and incorporating the recommendations provided by [the Mother's psychologist]". Dr Horvath did not specify the recommendations she was referring to, noting that Ms Saluja only recommended a hearing on the papers.
4. I adjourned the recusal application for a second time to 2 December 2025, for consideration prior to the substantive hearing.
5. Following the hearing, I issued the following directions:

1. On or before 4pm (Sydney time) on 26 November 2025, the Applicant's representative must give the Respondent and the Tribunal a written response to the following 5 questions, which must be numbered and no more than 1000 words in total. Please confirm: 1. whether a support person will attend to assist the Applicant's representative and/or the Applicant to participate at hearing. If so, please provide their name and a brief description of who they are and how you know them. 2. whether the Applicant's representative intends to call any witness to give oral evidence. If so, please provide their name, occupation, and role in the Applicant's life. 3. whether the Applicant would like to give evidence, talk to the Tribunal, or participate in some other way so that her voice is heard in the application for review. 4. the Applicant's representative's preferred level of participation at the hearing, from the following 5 options: 1. Give oral evidence (approximately 1 - 2 hours, with breaks) and not participate further. 2. Give oral evidence and observe the hearing. 3. Give oral evidence, observe the hearing, ask questions of other witnesses and/or make submissions. 4. Not give oral evidence but observe the hearing and/or ask questions of other witnesses and/or make submissions. 5. Not participate at all. 5. the Applicant's representative's requested adjustments to support her participation at hearing for consideration by the Tribunal.

6. On or before 1pm (Sydney time) on 27 November 2025, the Applicant's representative must give the Respondent and the Tribunal any relevant documents (indexed and paginated) that have been filed in these proceedings and which are not included in the Respondent's hearing bundle.

Notation: Should the Applicant's representative not give oral evidence at hearing, it may be open to the Respondent to make submissions that less weight that should be given to her written evidence.

7. The Mother sent further emails to the Tribunal but did not comply with the directions or provide the requested information.

1. The Mother did not join the hearing by video. At approximately 10:10am I requested my associate to call the Mother on two separate occasions, with approximately 2 minutes between each call. She did not answer.
2. I determined it was preferable to deal with the application based on the written material before. I refused the recusal application and indicated I would provide written reasons.
3. I adjourned the substantive hearing until 15 December 2025 for a dismissal hearing.

1. The relevant law was succinctly described in the recent decision of Andrews and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 473:

15. Subsection 37(1) Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the Act) provides that the President may direct that a member or members constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of a proceeding. When so directed, a member has a duty to hear and determine the application for review.[8] Section 46 of the Act allows the President of the Tribunal to reconstitute a matter at any time after the start of the hearing of a proceeding if they are satisfied that a member has a conflict of interest or an actual or apprehended bias in relation to the proceeding. It is evident that this provision promotes the Tribunal's statutory objectives, including providing a method of review that is fair and just as well as promoting public trust and confidence in the Tribunal. > > 16. It is a fundamental principle that a case must be decided by an independent and impartial Tribunal.[9] A judge, or in this case a member of a Tribunal, will be disqualified from hearing a case if it can be established that they are not independent and impartial.[10] Impartiality is an indispensable aspect of the exercise of the Tribunal's power.[11] Where there is actual bias or an apprehension of bias there is no impartiality.[12] > > 17. The legal principles relevant to ascertaining actual or apprehended bias were set down in the recent decision of FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 110. In short, actual bias will be found where a decision maker is so committed to a conclusion as to be incapable of alteration, irrespective of the evidence or arguments presented.[13] The question is whether the decision maker is open to persuasion. The fact that it may be easier to persuade a decision maker of a proposition than it may be to persuade another decision maker does not mean that either is affected by bias.[14] A finding of actual bias is a grave matter[15] and the allegation should therefore not be made lightly.[16] The accuser carries a heavy onus to establish the allegation.[17] The allegation must be distinctly made and clearly proved.[18] > > An apprehension of bias will be established if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question that requires determination.[19] The test is one of possibility (real and not remote) and not probability.[20] The application requires two steps. The first is that the accuser must identify what it is that may lead the decision maker to decide the case other than on its factual and legal merits. The second is that the accuser must articulate the logical connection between the matter and the feared deviation from deciding the case on its merits. A bare assertion, without more, is not sufficient to establish the nature of the interest and the asserted connection with the departure from impartial decision making. It is only after these two steps can the reasonableness of the apprehension of bias be assessed.[21] The observer is taken to be reasonable and the person observed is a professional decision maker whose "training, tradition and oath or affirmation require [the judge] to discard the irrelevant, the immaterial and the prejudicial".[22]

1. I understand from the Mother's correspondence that she seeks my recusal for the following reasons:

(a) Claim 1 - I did not afford procedural fairness; > > (b) Claim 2 - I did not provide adjustments on account of her disability and proceeded to hearing; > > (c) Claim 3 - I was disrespectful, made inappropriate comments and was discriminatory; and > > (d) Claim 4 - I invoked the President's name to intimidate her during the hearing.

2. I will deal with each claim separately before consideration of whether, collectively, it could be said that I have a closed-mind or predetermined view of the Applicant's case and/or whether a 'fair-minded lay observer' might be concerned that I do not have an impartial or open mind to the questions to be determined in the substantive application.

Claim 1 - I did not afford procedural fairness.

1. I understand the Mother claims that I did not afford procedural fairness because I did not give sufficient notice of the directions hearing on 7 November 2025. I accept that the hearing was arranged quickly and the Mother may not have been aware of it. I also accept the Mother attended hospital that day. I accept it was not a convenient time for the Mother and this may have caused her frustration and/or stress.
2. I apologised for the lack of notice and explained I was unaware of the Mother's planned attendance at hospital when arranging the directions hearing. I indicated I was attempting to respond to her concerns and to ensure the matter was appropriately timetabled to hearing, noting the delays with the Respondent obtaining the IME report.

Proceeding with directions hearing / not giving her reasonable opportunity to present her case.

1. The Mother claims that I refused to grant an adjournment and therefore demonstrated bias. I understand this to be primarily directed at my procedural decision to continue with the directions hearing and change the due date for the hearing bundle - discussed further below. Both parties expressed their views on the filing of the hearing bundle in their respective correspondence to the Tribunal prior to directions hearing. I indicated I would amend the timetable at the conclusion of the directions hearing because I was satisfied it was appropriate to do so and would progress the matter towards hearing.
2. I indicated to both parties that I would arrange a further directions hearing the following week to discuss the Mother's participation and any other issues. We discussed mutual availability and the Mother agreed to attend a further directions hearing the following week, on 11 November 2025.
3. To ensure the Tribunal has all the relevant information to make the correct or preferable decision, the Tribunal is empowered to give directions to the parties to progress the matter so that the application for review is ready for hearing. The Tribunal's statutory objectives in section 9 of the ART Act inform and guide this process. Such pre-hearing processes must be fair, however they do not determine the parties' rights, which are decided at final hearing where each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

1. The Respondent did not comply with a direction to file a joint hearing bundle by 31 October 2025. While the Tribunal generally expects compliance with directions, there may be occasions when compliance is unachievable for reasons beyond individual or collective disregard. I accept there were factors including the volume of material and the delayed provision of an IME report which affected the Respondent's compliance with this direction. Lawyers for the Respondent appropriately wrote to the Tribunal requesting adjustments to the timetable in September 2025.
2. The Tribunal may exercise discretion about how it responds when a party does not comply with a direction. This can include, for example, listing a non-compliance directions hearing or adjusting the direction to provide the party further time to comply. In more extreme cases, it can result in the dismissal of an application.
3. It is important to clarify that the Tribunal has progressively adopted a widespread practice in the NDIS jurisdiction of requesting the Respondent's lawyers to assist the Tribunal and unrepresented applicants by compiling a joint hearing bundle. The custom tends to reflect the large amount of material filed by applicants in NDIS matters, the reality that most applicants are not legally represented and the need for the Tribunal to navigate large amounts of material with efficiency and accuracy when making decisions. Joint hearing bundles routinely include a detailed index and hundreds of pages. The hearing bundle in this matter is 1271 pages long.
4. Prior to hanging up from the directions hearing, the Mother claimed that changing the due date for the hearing bundle would cause her prejudice. She did not elaborate on this point either at hearing or in the emails that followed. However, the Mother indicates in her emails that she considers I am impartial because I "tolerated" the Respondent's non-compliance and held her to a "stricter standard". I did not raise any issues of non-compliance with the Mother and therefore I am unsure what she is referring to.
5. The vast majority of documents contained in the hearing bundle have been provided by the Mother. She has shown herself capable of providing significant amounts of written correspondence to the Tribunal at short notice. She located and provided several important medical and allied health documents following my request for any further submissions or evidence in support of her recusal application.
6. The two most significant documents filed by the Respondent, the SOFIC and IME, were provided to the Mother in September 2025. The amended direction ensured she had access to the bundle more than 2 weeks prior to the hearing. In practical terms, a draft bundle was provided by the Respondent over 3 weeks prior to hearing.
7. I do not consider in these circumstances that a reasonable bystander would conclude that a 2-week delay for the provision of a hearing bundle would cause any material injustice to the Mother or that my preparedness to adjust the timetable gives rise to an apprehension of bias.

Claim 2 - I did not provide adjustments on account of her disability and proceeded to hearing.

1. The Mother requested a hearing on the papers on account of her disability. Her psychologist Ms Saluja also supports a hearing on the papers.

In my professional and ethical opinion, an immediate determination on the papers is the only trauma-informed, fair, and safe course of action consistent with both clinical duty of care and legislative requirements.[23]

2. The Tribunal made clear at the first directions hearings that the matter would proceed to hearing.
3. The Mother attended the directions hearing on 1 October 2025 and 7 November 2025.
4. The Tribunal offered a referral to legal aid and provided practical suggestions about other people who may be able to help the Mother at hearing.
5. The Mother has not responded to the Tribunal's directions to identify any further adjustments. The material provided from Ms Saluja does not propose any adjustments beyond a hearing on the papers. With respect to Dr Horvath's suggestions, I accept the hearing on 7 November was arranged without significant notice however Tribunal events are always scheduled, with listings emailed to parties prior to hearing and directions sent out confirming procedural decisions and any steps the parties are required to take at the conclusion of a hearing.
6. There is no apparent nexus between my preparedness to change the timetable and proceed to hearing in the circumstances outlined above and a conclusion of actual or apprehended bias, noting that directions hearings are focused on case management so that applications for review can be properly and fairly determined at hearing, in accordance with section 9 of the ART Act.
7. I accept that the Mother does not like my decision and would prefer the hearing was on the papers. However, that does not mean that I am biased against her and the Applicant or that there is a risk I will bring a closed mind to issues to be determined at final hearing. The hearing will involve considering the available evidence in relation to the disputed supports, attributing weight to different evidence, making finds of fact, and applying the legislative criteria and any relevant rules.

Claim 3 - I was disrespectful, made inappropriate comments and was discriminatory.

1. This claim is a bare assertion which is not supported by the evidence, noting I have had one 15-minute interaction with the Mother which was recorded.
2. I do not consider that a fair-minded lay observer could draw the conclusion that anything I said during the directions hearing could be construed as disrespectful, inappropriate, or discriminatory.
3. The purpose of the directions hearing was to introduce myself to the parties, respond to the Mother's concerns and ensure the matter was proceeding appropriately towards hearing.
4. I accept that the Mother did not like my suggestion that a support person, such as the Applicant's adult sister, could assist her to represent the Applicant at hearing. The suggestion was made in the context of the Mother's assertions that she was "medically unfit" to participate, was experiencing "horrendous PTSD symptoms" and that her treating practitioners had indicated she was unable to attend "live hearings". In my experience, Tribunal members regularly provide practical suggestions to assist applicants prepare for hearing including referrals to legal aid, advocacy organisations and/or requesting a friend or family member to attend as a support person.

Claim 4 - I invoked the President's name to intimidate her during the hearing

1. This imputation is factually incorrect and taken out of context.
2. The Mother asked why the matter had been reconstituted. I indicated that I did not know and that the Deputy President had asked me to hear the matter.
3. I accept the Applicant may have been surprised and/or confused that the matter had been re-constituted. It is not uncommon, in my experience, for matters to be reconstituted for a variety of reasons, including in the event a member becomes unavailable.
4. I note the listing notice regarding reconstitution had been emailed to the Mother a week earlier.
5. Again, there is no apparent nexus between the reconstitution of the matter, my response to the Mother's question and a conclusion of actual or apprehended bias.

1. I find there is no logical connection between those matters raised by the Mother outlined above, either individually or cumulatively, and her assertion that I may decide his matter otherwise than on its legal and factual merits.
2. The Mother's concerns do not establish actual bias, nor could I find that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that I might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions that I am required to decide at final hearing, based on those concerns. For these reasons, the Mother's recusal application is refused.

The Applicant's application for recusal is refused.

[1] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 26 September 2025, p1.

[2] T5 of respondent's hearing bundle (RHB), p256.

[3] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [37]

[8] Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63 (Ebner) at [19].

[11] QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors [2023] HCA 5 (QYFM), [26].

[13] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legend (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17, at [72] (Jia).

[15] Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71 at 127 per Burchett J.

[16] Chandrasekaran v Western Sydney Local Health District (t/as Westmead Hospital) [2023] NSWCA 288 at [48].

[17] South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds [20087] NSWCA 16 at [97].

[22] Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48 (Johnson), [12] quoting from Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39 (1986) 161 CLR 342 at [372] per Dawson J.