(a) the applicant:

(i) dies; or

(ii) becomes bankrupt; or

(iii) is wound up or otherwise ceases to exist; or

(iv) becomes subject to any form of liquidation or administration (however described); and

(b) the Tribunal considers that the applicant cannot continue with the substantive application because of the event mentioned in paragraph (a).

Another person may apply to continue with substantive application

(2) The following persons may apply to the Tribunal to continue with the substantive application:

(a) a legal personal representative, executor, administrator, liquidator or trustee of the applicant for the substantive application;

(b) a person who would have been entitled to apply for review of the decision at the time the substantive application was made.

(3) If a person applies to continue with the substantive application, the Tribunal may, on request or on its own initiative, give such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Tribunal may dismiss substantive application

(4) The Tribunal may dismiss the substantive application if:

(a) the Tribunal considers that there is no person mentioned in subsection (2) who can continue with the substantive application; or

(b) no application to continue with the substantive application is made within 3 months after the Tribunal becomes aware of the event mentioned in paragraph (1)(a).

For the reasons below, the Tribunal has decided to dismiss the application for review under s 84(4) of the ART Act.

If applicant dies or is bankrupt, wound up or in liquidation or administration

When this section applies

(1) This section applies in relation to a proceeding in the Tribunal in relation to an application (the substantive application) for review of a decision if:

(a) the applicant:

(i) dies; or

(ii) becomes bankrupt; or

(iii) is wound up or otherwise ceases to exist; or

(iv) becomes subject to any form of liquidation or administration (however described); and

(b) the Tribunal considers that the applicant cannot continue with the substantive application because of the event mentioned in paragraph (a).

Another person may apply to continue with substantive application

(2) The following persons may apply to the Tribunal to continue with the substantive application:

(a) a legal personal representative, executor, administrator, liquidator or trustee of the applicant for the substantive application;

(b) a person who would have been entitled to apply for review of the decision at the time the substantive application was made.

(3) If a person applies to continue with the substantive application, the Tribunal may, on request or on its own initiative, give such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Tribunal may dismiss substantive application

(4) The Tribunal may dismiss the substantive application if:

(a) the Tribunal considers that there is no person mentioned in subsection (2) who can continue with the substantive application; or

(b) no application to continue with the substantive application is made within 3 months after the Tribunal becomes aware of the event mentioned in paragraph (1)(a).

As Mr Marino unfortunately passed away on 29 June 2025, I am of the view, the substantive application is unable to continue due to Mr Martino's passing and the operation of s84 of the ART ACT.
An entitlement arising under a statute (including an entitlement to merits review of an administrative decision) will not always devolve on another upon the death of a claimant.[1] This will depend on the language of the statute under which the entitlement arises.[2]
The reviewable decision before the Tribunal is a decision that Mr Marino did not meet the access criteria to become a participant in the NDIS.
The statutory framework to be applied to consider whether a person will meet the access criteria to become a participant in the NDIS in contained in ss 22 to 25 of the NDIA Act. These sub sections prescribe the age, residence, disability, and early intervention requirements which collectively comprise the access criteria.
The statutory framework of the NDIS can only support the conclusion that Mr Marino's entitlement to make an access request to become a participant in the NDIS, and his entitlement to apply for merits review of the reviewable decision does not devolve on another upon his death. This is consistent with Carroll and the National Disability Insurance Agency [ 2022] AATA 2822 in which the Tribunal concluded:

'The Applicant's entitlement to make a request to become a participant in the NDIS ceased upon her death. This clear statutory intent that the scheme be available for participants during their life, but not after, is consistent with the subject matter of her review application being personal in nature and not transmissible to his [sic] legal representative.'[3]

For the reasons as outlined above, the Tribunal considers there is no person mentioned in s84(2) of the ART Act who can continue with the substantive application; and the Tribunal dismisses the substantive application under s 84(4) of the ART Act.

The Tribunal dismisses the substantive application under s84(4) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

[1] V120/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 264 (V120/00A), [53].

[3] Carroll and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 2822, [12].

Review Tribunal Act 2024

Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

Marino and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 48 (14 January 2026)

V120/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 264

Carroll and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 2822

V120/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)

Marino and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 48 (14 January 2026)