Court and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1560

Court and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1560 (26 August 2025)
Applicant/s:  Robyn Court
Respondent:  CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2023/9017

Tribunal:General Member D Heron
Place:Brisbane
Date:26 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, pursuant to subsection 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

General Member D Heron
Catchwords
National Disability Insurance Scheme – reviewable decision of Chief Executive Officer – becoming a participant – access request – approval for Level 3 Aged Care Package – where prospective participant has indigenous status and qualified for Aged Care before the age of 65 on that basis – Aged Care Act – likely to require NDIS supports for the person’s lifetime – access not met.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth)
Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth), 1 November 2025
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2013 (Cth)
Cases
Brickhill and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 707
GFRF and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 184
National Disability Insurance Agency v Deayton [2025] FCA 562
National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11; (2023) 295 FCR 521
NRNK and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 110
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308; 252 FCR 121
Sutherland and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 411
Secondary materials
Aged Care website, Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care, Home Care Packages Program Manual for Care Recipients
Aged Care, Approval of Care Recipients Principles 2014
Statement of Reasons
Introduction

Ms Robyn Court (the Applicant) is 59 years old and lives with her husband in Western Australia. She is an Aboriginal woman.
Ms Court has spinal spondylosis and related chronic pain conditions that the parties agree meet the permanent physical impairment criteria under s24(1)(a) and (b) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the NDIS Act). The parties further agree that Ms Court has significantly reduced functional capacity within the domains of self-care and mobility, affecting her ability for social and economic participation under s24(1)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act.
The issue before the Tribunal is narrowed to whether Ms Court meets the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS) disability requirements to become a participant of the scheme under s24(1)(e) which states as follows:
(e) the person is likely to require NDIS supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime.
Background
Ms Court originally applied to the National Disability Insurance Agency (the NDIA) for access on 8 April 2021, and received an access not met decision on 28 April 2021. On 18 May 2021, Ms Court sought an internal review of this decision. On 10 July 2021, a delegate of the NDIA affirmed the original decision not to grant access to the NDIS.
5.On 1 October 2021, Ms Court lodged a new application seeking access to the NDIS. On 28 October 2021 she received an access not met decision from the NDIA. Ms Court sought internal review of that decision, and on 25 January 2022 a delegate of the NDIA affirmed this decision of access not met.
6.On 18 May 2022, Ms Court applied again for access to the NDIS. On 7 June 2022 the decision was access not met. On 19 September 2022, Ms Court underwent an aged care assessment. On 23 September 2022, she was approved for a Commonwealth Aged Care Level 3 Home Care Package.
7.On 8 April 2023 Ms Court then aged 57 years, lodged another access request form with the NDIS. On 4 September 2023, the NDIA provided an access not met decision. On 26 September 2023, Ms Court requested an internal review, under s100(2), of the NDIS Act. On 7 November 2023, a delegate of the NDIA affirmed the decision under review (Reviewable Decision). On 30 November 2023, Ms Court sought review of the Reviewable Decision under s103(1) of the NDIS Act by proceedings filed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Application for Review).
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) to conduct an independent review of this decision because it is designated a reviewable decision by s 99(1) (Item 1) of the NDIS Act.[1]
[1] The AAT was abolished and replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 14 October 2024. By operation of Item 24 in Schedule 16 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Act 2024 (Cth) any proceeding which was not determined by 14 October 2024 continues in the ART and is to be determined by the application of the provisions of the ART Act.
The decision under review
Ms Court seeks access to the NDIS on the basis that she meets the disability requirements. She does not seek access on the basis that she meets the early intervention requirements.
The parties agree she has permanent physical impairments flowing from her diagnoses of spinal and lumbar spondylosis and her related chronic pain conditions, satisfying s24(1)(a) and (b) of the NDIS Act. The Respondent accepts that Ms Court has significantly reduced functional capacity within the domains of self-care and mobility affecting her ability for social and economic participation under s24(1)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act.
On the evidence before I have been satisfied that Ms Court meets ss 24(1)(a)-(d) of the NDIS Act based on her permanent physical impairments significantly reducing her functional capacity within the self-care and mobility domains. I am also satisfied that the impairments affect her capacity for social or economic participation: s 24(1)(d).
Accordingly my decision will focus on whether Ms Court is likely to require NDIS supports under the NDIS for her lifetime, under s24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.
The evidence and hearing
The hearing was held on 4 August 2025 via Microsoft Teams. Ms Court was represented by Ms C Faulkner, of Legal Aid WA and the NDIA was represented by Mr T Lettenmaier of Counsel, instructed by Ms P Frost of Maddocks. At the hearing the Applicant called Occupational Therapist Ms Thompson to give oral evidence.
I have considered all the written evidence provided in the joint tender bundles filed with the Tribunal, the oral evidence provided at the hearing and the parties’ oral closing submissions. I will refer in my decision to what I consider to be significant aspects of the evidence. However, the fact that I do not refer to all parts of the evidence does not mean that I have not taken all evidence before me into account in reaching my decision.
(a)Joint Tender Bundle, Exhibit 1
(b)Supplementary Joint Hearing Bundle, Exhibit 2.
(c)Commonwealth Home Care Package Manual website link, Exhibit 3[2]
(d)Aged Care AT HM list website link, Exhibit 4[3]
(e)Support at Home program website link, Exhibit 5[4]
(f)Ms Thompsons’ NDIS costing of recommended supports list, Exhibit 6.
[2] JTB, E33. Home Care Packages Program Manual for Care Recipients
[3] Assistive Technology and Home Modifications list (AT-HM list) | Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing
[4] Support at Home program | My Aged Care
Eligibility for access to the NDIS
Section 21(1) of the NDIS Act provides that a prospective participant will meet the access criteria for the NDIS if the CEO is satisfied that each of the access criteria is met. To meet access to the NDIS, a person must satisfy the age requirement, the residence requirement, and either the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements.[5] These requirements are specified in the NDIS Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2013 (Cth).
[5] s 21(1) of the NDIS Act.
Section 24 (as in force prior to 3 October 2024) provided:
24 Disability requirements
(1) A person meets the disability requirements if:
(a)the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory, or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable; and
(b)the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and
(c)the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:
(i)communication;
(ii)social interaction;
(iii)learning;
(iv)mobility;
(v)self-care;
(vi)self-management; and
(d)the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social and economic participation; and
(e)the person is likely to require supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that vary in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to require supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime, despite the variation.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that are episodic or fluctuating may be taken to be permanent, and the person may be taken to be likely to require supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime, despite the episodic or fluctuating nature of the impairments.
Summary of factual circumstances
The relevant factual material was agreed between parties at the beginning of the hearing, and is summarised as follows:
-The aged care system is primarily set up for individuals aged 65 and older, or those 50 and older with care needs who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, or with care needs who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
-To be eligible for aged care services, a person must meet the eligibility requirements in the Aged Care Act including the Approval of Care Recipients Principles 2014 (Approval of Care Recipients Principles).[6]
[6] JTB, E6, 908.
-If the outcome of the aged care needs assessment is that the eligibility criteria for Approval of Care Recipients Principles are met, a person may receive approval for one or more of the following aged care services:
·Permanent Residential Care;
·Residential Respite Care;
·Home Care Package;
·Flexible Care (e.g. Transition Care Programme and Short-Term Restorative Care Programme).
-Ms Court, as an Aboriginal person over 50 years of age, applied to My Aged Care and underwent an aged care needs assessment. Ms Court was assessed and met the eligibility criteria set out in the Approval of Care Recipients Principles.
-On 23 September 2022 Ms Court was approved for an Aged Care Level 3 Home Care Package. Ms Court’s aged care approval is not time limited.[7]
-Ms Court has chosen not to access her Home Care Package.[8]
-Ms Court has instead accepted services from the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP). CHSP is not governed by the Aged Care Act. CHSP services are available to frail, older people aged 65 years and older (50 years and older for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people).
-CHSP provides funding for broad entry-level aged care support services and is designed to provide a relatively small amount of care and support to a large number of older people to help them to remain living at home and in their communities.
[7] JTB, C23, 436.
[8] JTB, C30, 472.
Supports sought by Ms Court
The Applicant’s occupational therapist Ms Thompson undertook a functional capacity assessment and provided a report dated 20 June 2025.[9] Ms Thompson in her report makes the following support recommendations for Ms Court:
[9] JTB, C58, 631.
Capacity Building
a)Physiotherapy once a week
b)Hydrotherapy once a week
c)Occupational therapy (equipment reviews) 2 hours per year
d)Occupational therapy (home modifications) 12 hours per year
e)Clinical psychology once a week
f)Clinical psychiatry two sessions per year
g)Podiatry (expected to be covered under Medicare)
h)Support worker assistance 3 hours per day
i)Cleaning assistance 2 hours a week
Assistive Technology
j)Scooter with custom seat and elevating leg rest
k)Stair lift
l)Electric recliner lift chair
m)Bed rail
n)Bathroom modifications
o)Shower chair with arms
p)Low cost aids: long handled reacher and shoehorn
Ms Thompson gave evidence that her recommended supports, calculated using the NDIS Price Guide, would cost approximately $130,000 per year.[10]
[10] Transcript 2:21:49.
Section 24(1)(a)-(d) of the NDIS Act
The parties agree, and I am satisfied that Ms Court meets the age and residence requirements, and the disability requirements in s 24(1)(a) and (b) of the NDIS Act.
Ms Court’s impairments are described by her current General Practitioner Dr Chakraborty as: ‘chronic, constant daily back and leg pain, largely neuropathic in nature associated with significant leg weakness making standing difficulty and associated with an inability of walking more than a few steps’. Dr Chakraborty notes that she is wheelchair dependent. The Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions states that impairments flowing from her chronic and neuropathic pain from her multilevel spondylosis and other degenerative back conditions include:
a) Sensory impairments – chronic pain in her back and legs;
b) Neurological – neuropathic pain radiating down her legs and causing weakness in her legs;
c) Physical – foot drop and severe weakness in her legs limiting her capacity to balance, move around, sit, stand, twist, bend and reach.[11]
[11] JTB, A2, 42.
The Respondent accepts Ms Court’s sensory and physical impairments are permanent and result in substantially reduced capacity in the areas of mobility and self-care for the purposes of ss 24(1)(b) and (c) of the NDIS Act. The Respondent also accepts these impairments affect her capacity for social or economic participation for the purposes of s24(1)(d) of the NDIS Act. On the evidence I am satisfied that Ms Court meets the age, residency and disability requirements under ss24(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act.
Ms Court broadly seeks access to the NDIS for assistance with her mobility and self-care activities. This is in the form of assistance with self-care, daily living activities, community access, allied health capacity building and assistive technology for her mobility.
Does Ms Court meet s24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act?
Applicant’s position
The Applicant submits that the person to person, assistive technology and home modification supports being sought are disability supports required to address Ms Court’s substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake self-care and mobility tasks under s 24(1)(c) of the Act. The Applicant states that the NDIS is the most appropriate system to deliver these services due to Ms Court meeting ss24(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the NDIS Act.
The Applicant contends that the existence of other systems available, does not determine the question posed in National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 (Foster) of whether the NDIS is the most appropriate system to provide these supports. The Applicant states this is to be determined by considering whether the supports are ‘required in respect of substantially reduced functional capacity to participate in an “activity”’ in s 24(1)(c) of the Act, as per the Full Court in Foster.
With respect to the capacity building supports such as physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and occupational therapy, the Applicant submits that they are in respect of Ms Court’s disability arising from her substantially reduced functional capacity for mobility and self-care. In this way the Applicant states the supports are most appropriately provided by the NDIS, as they address this reduction in her functional capacity due to her disability.
The Applicant relies on the Occupational Therapist report of Ms Thompson, who recommends daily living support, community access, allied health and assistive technology supports.
Currently Ms Court has chosen not to accept her Home Care Package, however her approval for this does not have any time limit or restriction. In relation to her self-care and community access, Ms Court currently receives CHSP services with fortnightly cleaning and a support worker to assist with her grocery shopping.
The Applicant submits that Ms Court requires support with self-care, mobility and accessing the community not due to the natural course of aging, but rather requires this support due to her disability flowing from her chronic pain flowing from her spinal spondylosis and the consequential substantial reduction in her functional capacity for mobility and self-care. The Applicant contends the supports she seeks are therefore disability supports, and the most appropriate system to deliver those supports is the NDIS.
The Applicant, by way of the recommendations made by Ms Thompson using the NDIS price guide costings, contends that the funding available under a Home Care Package level 3 capped at $41,847, and level 4 capped at $63,266.84, would not be enough to meet her needs.
The Applicant contends that there is no binding authority or legislation that states if the support merely exists under another system, then that system must be the most appropriate system for the person to access that support. The Applicant submits this approach is inconsistent with the exploration of the word appropriate in National Disability Insurance Agency v Deayton [2025] FCA 562 (Deayton 2025).
The Applicant submits that this factor is highly relevant to the interpretation of s24(1)(e) given that the word appropriate was imported into 24(1)(e) in Foster on the basis of its use in section s34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. The Applicant referred the Tribunal to Deayton at paragraph 109 and the Commonwealth Essential Medical Equipment Payment, which provided a subsidy to the Applicant in that matter, not a full payment. The Applicant states this is a feature relevant to which system is more appropriate. The Applicant states that Foster doesn't prevent the decision maker from having regard to the extent of supports provided under another system as one relevant matter in deciding whether a support is most appropriately funded through the NDIS.
In relation to Deayton, the Applicant emphasises the similarity of the co-payment issue. Recipients of aged care are expected to make a financial contribution to the cost of their services. The Applicant contends per Deayton, that this is a significant distinguishing feature between the NDIS and aged care, relevant in determining whether Indigenous applicants aged between 50 and 64 should access one scheme or the other.
Turning to the exemption that allows Ms Court access to My Aged Care as she is an Aboriginal woman over the age of 50, the Applicant quotes the Interim First Nations Aged Care Commissioner Ms Andrea Kelly who stated:
As a result of the impacts of colonisation and ongoing discrimination, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have higher rates of disability, lower life expectancy and an increased likelihood of requiring aged care services at a younger age than non-Indigenous people. In recognition of this, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can access aged care at a younger age than other population groups.[12]
[12] Report of the Interim First Nations Aged Care Commissioner, Andrea Kelly, Transforming Aged Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, November 2024, page 26 type="1">
The Applicant contends it is:
Highly concerning if efforts like this to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous health and life-expectancy outcomes inadvertently create a two-tiered system whereby indigenous people with disability over the age of 50 are only able to access the very limited supports available under the aged care system, whilst non-indigenous Australians of the same age and with the same functional impairments are able to access funding reflective of the full extent of their disability support needs through the NDIS.[13]
[13] JTB, A2, 71.
The Applicant states that there are significant and greatly troubling implications should it be found that it is more ‘appropriate’ for Indigenous people to be supported through My Aged Care due solely to race.
Respondent’s position
The Respondent’s position is that per Foster, when a person is already eligible or receiving a relevant support under a different scheme, then the Tribunal should not be satisfied that they require NDIS supports under the NDIS for their lifetime as required by s 24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.
The Respondent cites several decisions supporting their position as follows:
(a)       NRNK and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 110 (NRNK)[14], the Applicant was found not to have met s 24(1)(e) because she had been approved for a HCP Level 3 and she could ‘receive the supports she seeks under her My Aged Care package’ therefore the Tribunal found her supports were most appropriately met by that system not the NDIS.
(b)       GFRF and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 184 (GFRF), the Tribunal found that in accordance with Foster it was not for the Tribunal to evaluate supports in one system against another service system in line with the expressed preferences of the Applicant.[15] GFRF did not follow the decision of Sutherland and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 411 in which it was found that whether supports were available under other schemes was not relevant to s 24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.[16]
(c)       Brickhill and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 707 (Brickhill), the Tribunal summarily dismissed an application where the Applicant had already been approved for a level 4 home care package.
[14] NRNK at 137-147.
[15] GFRF at 67-68.
[16] Sutherland at 89-102.
(d)       Butic and Chief Executive Office of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 76, the Tribunal found in relation in s 25(3) of the NDIS Act that supports sought by the Applicant were available under a Mental Health Care Plan or a Chronic Disease Management Plan.
The Respondent states this case does not turn on Ms Court’s eligibility because she meets an exception to the criteria based on race. The Respondent asserts Ms Court has been assessed using the Approval of Care Recipients Principles and approved for a Home Care Package Level 3. The Respondent states Ms Court met the criteria under s 21-3 of the Aged Care Act as follows:
(1) the person has physical, medical, social or psychological needs that require the provision of care;
(2) those needs can be met appropriately through home care services; and
(3) the criteria in 7(3) of the Approval Principles.
The Respondent states that approval for support under the Aged Care Act is based on an assessment of the person’s particular circumstances including their physical needs and capacity.
The Respondent’s contentions in relation to s 24(1)(e) are consistent with the interpretation set out in Foster. That is, if the support is already available under another scheme, then it is not required under the NDIS for a person’s lifetime.
The Respondent’s overall position is that as the supports sought by Ms Court are available under Aged Care, the Tribunal should not be satisfied that Ms Court meets s 24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.
Consideration
The focus for s 24(1)(e) is the date of the Tribunal’s decision.[17] On this date I find Ms Court has indefinite approval for a Level 3 Home Care Package that provides her with access to the allied health, daily living supports, and assistive technology required.
[17] See generally, Shi v Migration Agent’s Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [41] – [46].
The types of services available under a Home Care Package are described in the manual as follows:[18]
Personal services: assistance with personal activities such as bathing, showering, toileting, dressing and undressing, mobility and communication
Home maintenance: reasonably required to maintain the home and garden in a condition of functional safety and provide an adequate level of security, such as cleaning gutters. Modifications to the home, such as easy access taps, shower hose or bath rails
Nutrition, hydration, meal preparation and diet: assistance with preparing meals, including special diets for health, religious, cultural or other reasons, assistance with using eating utensils and assistance with feeding
Continence management: assistance in using continence aids and appliances such as disposable pads and absorbent aids, commode chairs, bedpans and urinals, catheter and urinary drainage appliances, and enemas
Mobility and dexterity: providing crutches, quadruped walkers, walking frames, walking sticks, mechanical devices for lifting, bed rails, slide sheets, sheepskins, tri-pillows, pressure-relieving mattresses and assistance using these aids
Transport and personal assistance: assistance with shopping, visiting health practitioners and attending social activities
Management of skin integrity: assistance with bandages, dressings and skin emollients.
Clinical Care: includes nursing, allied health and therapy services such as speech therapy, podiatry, occupational or physiotherapy services, other clinical services such as hearing and vision services.
[18] Home Care Packages Program Manual (PDF) | My Aged Care, pages 64-66.
The evidence confirms the status of Ms Court’s Aged Care approval, and that it does not have any time limit attached to its approval.[19] Ms Court’s evidence is that she did not take up the Home Care Package due to the co-contribution. The evidence provided is that Ms Court doesn't qualify for the subsidised supports because of her husband's income, which she is reliant on. I do not consider that Ms Court’s choice not to use her Home Care Package is relevant to my decision.
[19] JTB, C3, 426.
In considering the Applicant’s contention that Ms Court requires more funding than is available under a Home Care Package, I take the evidence before me at its highest. I accept that Aged Care funding is capped whereas NDIS is not. I am not persuaded that the recommendations put forth by Ms Thompson are an indication of the funding Ms Court would receive through the NDIS. NDIS plans are built on a range of factors including actuarial data. While recommendations by a qualified allied health practitioner may be taken into account, these recommendations are not indicative of NDIS plan funding.
While I accept that the aged care system is a co-contribution scheme, I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s assertion that a non-Indigenous person in the exact same circumstances would not need to pay a co-contribution for supports, as they would meet the NDIS eligibility criteria. While the aged care system is set up generally for people 65 years and older, the current Aged Care Act does not legislate an age minimum. Currently, people under 65 years can be assessed as long as they have care needs and have followed the process of exploring their age-appropriate options, and can be approved for aged care services.
I agree with the Respondent that Ms Court has met eligibility for access to Aged Care Services and has been approved for a Home Care Package Level 3. This approval is not time limited. She cannot therefore be likely to require support under the NDIS for her lifetime. I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s reliance upon the co-payments feature per Deayton’s ‘significant distinguishing feature’. This is an access request, separate to Deayton being a supports matter: s34(1)(f). The co-payment feature does not enter into my assessment of s24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.
I agree with the Respondent that as the Full Court held in Foster, s 24(1)(e) does not evoke a comparison of the support available to a prospective participant under the NDIS relative to other programs.[20] It is limited to the question of whether the prospective participant is likely to require support under the NDIS for their lifetime.
[20] Foster at [92] to [94].
Due to her approval for a Home Care Package level 3, Ms Court already has supports under the Aged Care system for her lifetime. While the Home Care package program is capped with co-contributions payable, the limits under which general systems of service delivery operate is not a consideration in determining if a person is likely to require support under the NDIS for their lifetime. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that Ms Court is likely to require support under the NDIS for her lifetime. I find she does not meet the disability requirement specified under s 24(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.
Conclusion
The Tribunal finds that Ms Court does not meet the access criteria under section 21 of the Act. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, pursuant to subsection 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

52.     I certify that the preceding 51 (fifty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member D Heron.

................[SGD].................
Associate
26 August 2025
Date of hearing:   4 August 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:           Ms C Faulkner, Legal Aid WA
Counsel for the Respondent:         Mr T Lettenmaier
Solicitors for the Respondent:       Ms P Frost, Maddocks