FDFF and National Disability Insurance Agency

Case

[2020] AATA 3385

4 September 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
FDFF and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 3385 [2020] AATA 3385 4 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by FDFF to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) concerning the applicant's statement of participant supports. The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the NDIA's decision of 24 October 2018, and if so, whether the period of review was limited to the life of the applicant's first plan.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the NDIA's decision approving the statement of participant supports made on 24 October 2018, particularly given the significant time lapse between the applicant's request for an internal review and their subsequent application to the Tribunal. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the scope of its review of the 24 October 2018 decision was confined to the period covered by the applicant's first plan, which had since expired.

The Tribunal found that it did have jurisdiction to review the 24 October 2018 decision. This was based on the interpretation of section 100(6) of the NDIS Act, which allows the Tribunal to find that the NDIA did not make a decision as soon as reasonably practicable. In this instance, the Tribunal found that the NDIA had not done so, and therefore, pursuant to section 25(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the NDIA was deemed to have made a decision affirming the original decision, which was reviewable under section 103 of the NDIS Act. Regarding the period of review, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's contention that the jurisdiction extended to the entire intervening period was not supported by the facts. The Tribunal clarified that the NDIA's subsequent decision of 18 March 2020 related to a different plan (Plan 2), which had replaced Plan 1. Therefore, the reviewable decision remained that of 24 October 2018, and the Tribunal's review was not limited by the expiry of Plan 1.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Appeal

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Judicial Review

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

2