Bridgland and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by James Bridgland, represented by Gerry Bridgland, seeking review of decisions made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) concerning his participant plan under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The core dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to review the NDIA's decisions, particularly in light of the statutory framework governing internal reviews and subsequent appeals.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to review the NDIA's decisions regarding James Bridgland's participant plan, and specifically, whether the actions taken by Gerry Bridgland constituted a valid request for an internal review that would then allow for a subsequent review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was required to interpret the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) relating to the content of participant plans, the nature of reviewable decisions, the process for internal review, and the conditions precedent for an application to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, constituted by SM J F Toohey, considered the relevant sections of the Act. It noted that a decision to approve the statement of supports in a participant's plan is a reviewable decision. The Act permits a person affected by such a decision to request an internal review, which can be made orally. Following an internal review, a reviewer makes a decision, and it is this decision that may be subject to an application to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal observed that the NDIA had issued a new plan on 11 November 2016, which varied the previous plan. Section 101 of the Act states that if a reviewable decision is varied before a decision on review is made, the request for review is taken to be for the review of the varied decision. In this instance, the NDIA had not yet made a decision on the internal review request concerning the 21 September 2016 plan when it issued the new plan on 11 November 2016. Therefore, the request for review was automatically deemed to be a request for review of the new plan. The Tribunal found that no decision had been made by a reviewer under section 100(6) in relation to the 11 November 2016 plan, and consequently, there was no decision of a reviewer upon which the Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction under section 103.

Accordingly, the Tribunal made an order striking out the application for want of jurisdiction.