Edwards and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1340

Edwards and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1340 (14 August 2025)
Administrative Review Tribunal
Applicant/s:  Steven Edwards
Respondent:   CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:   2023/4710
Tribunal:General Member D Heron
Place:  Brisbane
Date:14 August 2025
Corrigendum
Date of Corrigendum: 22 August 2025
Pursuant to section 114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, the following alteration is made to the statement of reasons for the decision:

At page 44, the words “Mr Bilboe, Special Counsel” is deleted and substituted with “Intrepidus Law”.

.................[SGD].................

General Member D Heron

Applicant:   Mr Steven Edwards
Respondent:          CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2023/4710
Tribunal:              General Member D Heron
Place:                   Brisbane
Date:                    14 August 2025
Decision: Pursuant to subsection 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) the decision under review is set aside. The matter is remitted to the NDIA for reconsideration with a direction that within 14 days of this decision Mr Edwards SOPS includes across a 12 month plan as follows:
1. Core Funding
(a) $500 for low-cost assistive technology.
(b) 32 hours of Assistance with Daily Living per week to be funded as follows:
(i) 1 hour per day of assistance with self-care activities (weekday daytime and weekend daytime rates);
(ii) 5 hours per weekday of assistance with daily living (weekday daytime rates).

(c) 12 hours of Social and Community Participation per week to be funded as follows:
(i) 3 hours per week at a Saturday rate;
(ii) 3 hours per week at a Sunday rate; and
(iii) 6 hours per week at a weekday evening rate.

2. Capacity Building
(d) 12 hours for exercise physiology per year.
(e) 5 hours for assessment by an exercise physiologist for the provision of an exercise program.
(f) 26 hours for Level 2 Therapy Assistant per year.
3. All other reasonable and necessary supports in the existing SOPS (which are not funded under paragraphs 1 and 2 (and the subparagraphs to those paragraphs) will be replicated for a period of 12 months apart from the one-off high value assistive technology and one-off continence assessment already funded.
.................[SGD]..................
General Member D Heron
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

Lower limb paraplegia – reasonable and necessary supports – section 34 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) – parenting with a disability – core support – capacity building support.

Legislation

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act) (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) s105

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s10, s33, s34, s35, s99, s103

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)- s129

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)

Cases
FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114
Secondary Materials

NDIS – Operational Guidelines – Reasonable and necessary supports

STATEMENT OF…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Edwards and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)

Details

AGLC: Edwards and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1340
Case: [2025] ARTA 1340
Decision Date: 14 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Edwards and the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) was heard. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), specifically concerning the provision of reasonable and necessary supports for individuals with disabilities, in this case, lower limb paraplegia. The applicant, Edwards, sought an order for the NDIS to provide specific support services to assist her in parenting her child, given her disability. The crux of the case was whether these supports could be classified as core activities or capacity building supports under the Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether the requested parenting supports could be considered as either core activities or capacity building supports under section 34 of the Act. The applicant argued that the supports were necessary for her to parent effectively, thereby classifying them as core activities. Alternatively, she posited that these supports were integral to building her capacity to engage in daily life, thus qualifying as capacity building supports. The NDIS, on the other hand, contended that the requested supports did not meet the statutory criteria for either category and, as such, were not eligible for funding.

The Court examined the statutory definitions and the legislative intent behind the categorisation of supports. It considered the broader legislative framework and the purpose of the NDIS, which is to provide reasonable and necessary supports to participants. The Court concluded that while the applicant's need for support in parenting was genuine, the requested supports did not align with the statutory definitions of either core activities or capacity building supports. The Court emphasised that core activities are those essential for an individual's daily living, whereas capacity building supports are those that enhance an individual’s ability to participate in activities that are not core activities. The Court found that the supports sought by Edwards, while important, did not fit neatly within these statutory definitions.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the applicant's claims. The Court held that the requested supports did not qualify as either core activities or capacity building supports under section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). Consequently, the NDIS was not required to provide the supports as sought by Edwards.

Orders