1. Section 102 of the Act provides that the Tribunal may reinstate an application for review within 28 days of the application being dismissed, either on the grounds of error or in other specified circumstances.
2. Relevant to Mr Worthington's application for reinstatement the provision states:

102 Reinstatement of application > > When this section applies > > (1) This section applies if the Tribunal dismisses an application. > > ... > > Party may apply for reinstatement if application dismissed in error > > (5) A party to the proceeding in relation to the application may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application on the grounds of error within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed (or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows). > > (6) If a party applies under subsection (5) and the Tribunal considers that the application was dismissed in error, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances. > > ... > > Parties can apply for reinstatement in other specified circumstances > > (7) If the application is dismissed under: > > ... > > (b) section 99 (Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear); or > > ... > > a party to the proceeding in relation to the application may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed (or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows). > > ... > > (9) If a party applies under subsection (7) and the Tribunal considers it appropriate to reinstate the application, the Tribunal may reinstate the application and make such orders as appear to the Tribunal to be appropriate in the circumstances.

3. In summary, the Tribunal may reinstate the application if it was dismissed in error or if it is appropriate in the circumstances to reinstate the matter.
4. In the recent matter of JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services[2] Kyrou J summarised the types of errors that fall within subsection 102(6) of the Act. I adopt his Honour's summary of the case law that has directly considered the scope of the phrase dismissed in 'error'.[3] This relevantly included an example of a dismissal in error being a dismissal for failure to appear where notice had not been received the applicant and, in the circumstances, could not be deemed to have been delivered.[4]

1. Mr Worthington sent an email to the Tribunal requesting that his application be reinstated, as set out in the Appendix. In short, Mr Worthington states that he did not receive notice of the hearing on 28 November 2025 and therefore was unable to attend.
2. The Respondent made detailed submissions opposing the application.

1. Mr Worthington contends that he never received notice of the in-person hearing scheduled on 28 October 2025.
2. I find that notice of the 28 October 2025 hearing was sent to the Mr Worthington's nominated email address on 13 October 2025. Both before and after the issuing of that notice, Mr Worthington corresponded with the Tribunal using that email address. The history of this matter indicates that Mr Worthington has not attended scheduled Tribunal case events and has not complied with directions. I am not persuaded, based on Mr Worthington's assertions alone, that he did not receive notice of the hearing.
3. It is not apparent that there was any error of fact or law to suggest that the application was dismissed in error. I find accordingly.
4. Therefore, the application cannot be reinstated pursuant to subsection 102(6) of the Act.

1. Mr Worthington is a current participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I accept that he suffers from impairments that impact on his functional capacity.
2. Again, I have reviewed the history of the application. In dismissing the application for review I was satisfied that Mr Worthington had been given ample opportunity to prepare and prosecute his application.
3. I also accept the Respondent's submissions that there are no issues in dispute requiring determination by this Tribunal. Since lodging his application with this Tribunal a new plan has come into effect which now includes funding for all the supports that formed the basis of Mr Worthington's application to this Tribunal.
4. I am not persuaded that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to exercise the legislative discretion to reinstate the application.
5. It follows that the application is not reinstated pursuant to subsection 102(7) of the Act.
6. There is no other provision in the Act that permits the application to be reinstated at Mr Worthington's request. It follows that Mr Worthington's request for reinstatement pursuant to section 102 of the Act is refused.

I have been asked of documentation for reinstating. I am claiming I never received the email stated by register was sent for me to appear. I have been asking for a date to appear in person for some time now. The Sydney registry has several emails from me asking for a date for the tribunal date to appear. I can not be present to the tribunal process if I was not aware. I received a email after I had called the Sydney registry to find out why they were not responding to my emails requesting a date to appear. Blindsided with a email saying the tribunal process has been finalised without knowing it was even taking place. The respondent has knowledge of what I have to say. Not wanting to address. I feel the way I haven't been notified is a way to ignore what has happened to me. I have a voice message I'm going to send again excusing me from an early opointment (sic) which they claim I never attended the respondent is also aware of the call I received. I am asking the tribunal to relist my tribunal matter for early next year.

[1] Worthington and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2644.

[2] JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social Security) [2025] ARTA 464 (JTBJ).