Deayton and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr Deayton against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Mr Deayton, who has the rare genetic muscle disorder Nemaline Myopathy, sought to have certain supports included in his NDIS plan. The dispute centred on whether these supports constituted reasonable and necessary supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act), particularly in relation to day-to-day living costs and whether they related to his disability.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the NDIA's decision to exclude certain supports from Mr Deayton's NDIS plan was correct. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of the "no disadvantage principle," which Mr Deayton argued should have ensured continuity of supports previously funded under his previous Individual Support Plan (ISP). The Tribunal also had to assess whether the requested supports were for day-to-day living costs or were directly related to Mr Deayton's disability, and whether there was sufficient evidence to validate the need for these supports.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the NDIA, finding that the "no disadvantage principle," as referenced in intergovernmental agreements, did not supplant the statutory criteria for determining reasonable and necessary supports under the Act. The Tribunal noted that the concept of "no disadvantage" was not explicitly found in the Act and that decision-making must be consistent with the federal statutory framework. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the nature of Mr Deayton's previous ISP supports or to adequately validate the underlying need for the requested supports. The Tribunal applied the principles from *McLaughlin and National Disability Agency* [2021] AATA 496, which held that the "no disadvantage principle" does not override the statutory criteria and that the nexus between a disability and a support must be clearly established by evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision under review.