Isbister and National Disability Insurance Agency
[2023] AATA 2071
•18 July 2023
Isbister and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 2071 (18 July 2023)
Division:National Disability Insurance Scheme Division
File Number:2023/4078
Re:Kylie Isbister
APPLICANT
National Disability Insurance AgencyAnd
RESPONDENT
Tribunal: Senior Member K. Parker
Date:18 July 2023
Place:Melbourne
DECISION
Pursuant to s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal extends the time for the making of an application to the Tribunal for review the decision under s 100 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) dated 23 March 2023 (confirming an earlier decision not to grant access to the Applicant to the National Disability Insurance Scheme), to 7 June 2023.
.....................[sgd]...................................................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – application for extension of time (EOT) to make an application for review of decision – National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) opposes EOT application – Applicant claims that she has physical, neurological impairments and impairment(s) attributable to a psychosocial disability – Applicant seeks access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme – application for review of decision made approximately six and half weeks after the expiry of 28-day statutory time limit – consideration of explanation for the delay – whether NDIA has suffered any prejudice by the delay – whether against the public interest to grant the EOT application – NDIA contends Applicant has alternative rights of review – beneficial legislation – Tribunal satisfied it is reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for making the application for review of decision
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
CASES
Re Hassan and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1629
Hunter Valley Developments v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Re Macdonald and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 2459
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member K. Parker
18 July 2023
BACKGROUND
The Applicant, Miss Kylie Isbister, aged 45, seeks access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in relation to several claimed physical and neurological impairments, and impairment(s) arising from a psychosocial disability. Miss Isbister made an access request to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) under s 18 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act). A delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the NDIA decided not to grant Miss Isbister’s access request (Original Access Decision). Miss Isbister sought review of this decision by a “reviewer” from the NDIA, under s 100 of the NDIS Act.
On 23 March 2023, the “reviewer” confirmed the Original Access Decision not to grant access to Miss Isbister to the NDIS (Internal Review Decision).
On 7 June 2023, Miss Isbister lodged with the Tribunal an online AAT Application for Review of Decision form. This application was made after the expiry of the 28-day time limit prescribed under s 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act).
On 15 June 2023, Miss Isbister lodged with the Tribunal a further AAT Application for Review of Decision form, containing a request for an extension of time to make the substantive application for review (EOT Application).
ISSUE
The issue arising in this matter is whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s 29(7) of the AAT Act to extend the time for Miss Isbister to make an application for review of the Internal Review Decision, to 7 June 2023.
SUBMISSIONS AND EOT HEARING
The Tribunal conducted a hearing by telephone on 17 July 2023 in relation to Miss Isbister’s EOT Application (EOT Hearing). Miss Isbister gave the Tribunal advance notice of her intention to appear at the EOT Hearing accompanied by two support coordinators from Blossom Community Care. On the day of the EOT Hearing, the support coordinators were uncontactable. Miss Isbister indicated to the Tribunal that she was content to proceed without those persons present to provide support to her. The NDIA was represented at the EOT Hearing by an NDIA in-house lawyer, Ms Mary Zdilar, and an NDIA case manager.
Prior to the EOT Hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the documents lodged by the parties in this matter as best as it was able (some of them were illegible due to the quality of the scanned copies). Those documents included medical reports, reports by allied health professionals, and the Original Access Decision. The available legible documents made reference to Miss Isbister having:[1]
[1] At the EOT Hearing, Miss Isbister confirmed that she suffered from those conditions.
(a)chronic long-term medical issues;
(b)severe heart disease;
(c)postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS);
(d)fibromyalgia;
(e)chronic fatigue syndrome;
(f)arthritis;
(g)pernicious anaemia;
(h)nasal issues;
(i)bulging discs;
(j)“weak” legs;
(k)sleep apnoea;
(l)shortness of breath; and
(m)depression; and
(n)anxiety.
In the EOT Application, Miss Isbister provided as her reasons for applying for an extension time, and her explanation as to why she did not apply within the time limit, as follows:
ndis sent it to my gov. but i dont(sic) have ndis on my gov or an android phone. and coulnt(sic) acess(sic) it before 28 days and i have been unwell as well.
At the EOT Hearing, after Miss Isbister was taken through the records in the NDIA Interaction Notes for 23 March 2023, she accepted that the Internal Review Decision had been given to her by email on 23 March 2023. She confirmed that she had informed the “reviewer” on 23 March 2023, that she wanted to submit further medical evidence and immediately following their telephone call, that despite this indication from Miss Isbister the “reviewer” proceeded to make the Internal Review Decision.
The NDIA opposes the EOT Application.
The NDIA lodged an AAT Notice of Opposing Application for Extension of Time form on 28 June 2023. Subsequently, on 29 June 2023, the NDIA lodged an updated AAT Notice of Opposing Application for Extension of Time form (Opposition Notice) and requested the earlier version be disregarded, which the Tribunal has done.
The NDIA sets out as its grounds for opposition in its Opposition Notice, as follows:
Extension of time: s29(7)
On 13 June 2023, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for an extension of time to review the internal review decision dated 23 March 2023. The power to extend time is discretionary and the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
In assessing an extension of time application, the Tribunal must conduct an exercise in weighing the various relevant factors: Zizza v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 37; Hunter Valley Developments v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344. The Respondent summarises the relevant factors as follows.
Length of Delay
On 23 March 2023, the Respondent decided under s100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) to confirm an earlier decision under s33(2), dated 16 January 2023 that the Applicant did not meet the access criteria required to become a participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) (section 20 of the NDIS Act 2013).
A further right of review is contained in s103 of the NDIS Act and an application must be made within the prescribed time of 28 days as required by s29(2) of the AAT Act. The Respondent submits that the Applicant should have lodged an AAT application on or before 20 April 2023.
On the face of this EOT application, it would mean an application lodged on 13 June 2023 would be filed 55 days outside the 28 day period in s29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act). The Respondent submits that such a delay in filing this application is significant.
Explanation for the Delay
In the AAT and EOT application filed on 13 June 2023, the applicant’s reason for delay was stated by the Applicant’s representative as follows: “ndis sent it to my gov. but i dont have ndis on my gov or an android phone. and coulnt acess it before 28 days and i have been unwell as well.”
The Respondent submits that the stated reason is not consistent with the circumstances in this case and therefore does not justify the exercise of the discretion to grant an extension of time. The circumstances are:
·After the internal review decision made on 23 March 2023, the Applicant made another application for access to the NIDS (sic).
·In response to that application, on 17 May 2023 the Respondent made a decision that the Applicant did not meet the access criteria.
Further, in respect of the stated reason that the Applicant ‘has been unwell’ there is no evidence to support this and further is inconsistent with her having lodged a further access application after the internal review decision of 23 March 2023.
Prejudice to the Respondent and others
The Respondent has a right to rest on their decision in situations where the Applicant understands their review rights and does not seek to review the decision within the provided avenues and timeframes.
In fairness to other applicants seeking external review, the reason stated in the EOT does not adequately explain the delay when the Applicant was aware of the 28 day period to apply to the AAT.
Alternative Avenues for Relief
The Respondent submits that there are alternative avenues for the Applicant to pursue regarding their request to become a participant in the NDIS. That is, the Applicant can make a new access request at any time, and can certainly do so once they have explored and undertaken all available and recommended treatments as indicated by the internal reviewer in making the decision and obtain further evidence.
The internal reviewer considered the medical evidence provided by the Applicant and was not satisfied that the Applicant’s impairments were permanent as per the s24(1)(b) criterion or that Applicant had a substantially reduced functional capacity as per the s24(1)(c) criterion. In respect of the permanency criterion in s 24(1)(b) the internal reviewer concluded that:
As the evidence indicates that you have not completed all available and recommended treatments, the likely permanency of your impairments cannot be determined at this time. Without specialist evidence confirming that all available treatment options have been explored, completed, and that your impairments have been optimally treated and stabilised, your neurological and physical impairments cannot meet this criterion.
Future applications would benefit from a thorough treatment history for your impairments indicating the outcomes of all medical treatment, surgical intervention (if applicable), specialist reviews, and specialist prognosis.
The Respondent submits that once further evidence is obtained about the Applicant’s impairments, a new access request will be a more expedient and straight forward way of seeking access. This will also give the Applicant the same review rights as their previous request.
In all the circumstances, the Respondent submits that this factor, namely an alternative to seek review by way of a new access request, should weigh heavily against the EOT being granted: see Hassan and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1629 & Macdonald and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 2459 at [67].
CONSIDERATION
Section 29(2) of the AAT Act provides that an application for review must be made within 28 days from the day the reviewable decision was given to the Applicant.
Section 29(7) of the AAT Act provides that the Tribunal may extend the time for lodgement if it is satisfied that “it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so”.
The factors the Tribunal will consider in making this assessment are:[2]
[2] Hunter Valley Developments v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344.
(a)the length of the delay in lodging the application;
(b)the Applicant’s explanation for the delay in lodging the application;
(c)the Tribunal’s preliminary impression as to the merits of the substantive application;
(d)whether the NDIA has suffered any prejudice on account of the delay and whether Miss Isbister had rested on her rights of review;
(e)public interest in granting the extension; and
(f)any other matters the Tribunal considers appropriate, such as:
(i)any other alternative avenues of relief; and
(ii)the NDIS Act is beneficial legislation.
Firstly, the Tribunal must consider the length of the delay in making the application for review of decision. The NDIA emailed the Internal Review Decision to Miss Isbister on 23 March 2023 and as mentioned above, at the EOT Hearing, Miss Isbister accepted that she must have received it on 23 March 2023 based on references contained in the Interaction Notes produced by the NDIA to the Tribunal before the Hearing.
The Tribunal finds that the Internal Review Decision was “given” to Miss Isbister on 23 March 2023. The Tribunal finds that the 28-day time limit under s 29(2) of the AAT expired on 20 April 2023. This means that length of the delay in Miss Isbister making the application for review of decision to this Tribunal was about six and a half weeks after the expiry of the 28-day time limit. The Tribunal considers that the length of the delay is not insignificant but it would not characterise it as considerable or lengthy.
Because the length of the delay in this case is not considerable, the Tribunal concludes that this factor should not weigh against granting the EOT Application.
Secondly, the Tribunal must consider Miss Isbister’s explanation for the delay. Her explanation for the delay, as set out in her EOT Application, was two-pronged.
The first reason is that she stated that she has been “unwell of late”. This was expanded upon at the EOT Hearing. Miss Isbister told the Tribunal that she had been experiencing exhaustion and stomach problems. She said that she was admitted to hospital for three days in February 2023 for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of her liver due to a liver problem. She said that one duct was enlarged and that she was told she has “gallbladder sludge”. The Tribunal that this term refers to bile remaining in the gallbladder for too long.
The second reason for the delay, as stated by Miss Isbister in her EOT Application, is that she claimed that the method of delivery of the Internal Review Decision was by the posting or uploaded of it to her MyGov account. Miss Isbister stated that she does not have this application on her android mobile phone and her NDIS account and MyGov accounts were not linked. Miss Isbister initially stated that she did not access the Internal Review Decision until after the 28-day time limit had expired.
In the NDIA’s Opposition Notice, it contends that:
(a)there is no evidence before the Tribunal in support of Miss Isbister’s assertion that she has been “unwell of late”;
(b)Miss Isbister’s statement that she did not access the Internal Review Decision until after the 28-day time limit had expired, is inconsistent with her making a new access request after the Internal Review Decision was made. This new access request resulted in the NDIA making a further decision on 17 May 2023 not to grant Miss Isbister access to the NDIS (Second Access Decision).
Before the EOT Hearing, the Tribunal asked the NDIA to produce its interaction notes recording details of all interactions between its staff and Miss Isbister between the date of the Internal Review Decision and 14 July 2023 (Interaction Notes). The Interaction Notes were produced on 17 July 2023.
The Interaction Notes record as follows:
(a)as mentioned above, Miss Isbister contacted the NDIA at 2.06pm on 23 March 2023, indicating she wanted to lodge further medical evidence in support of her request for internal review of the Original Access Decision;
(b)15 minutes later (specifically, at 2.21pm on 23 March 2023), the “reviewer” proceeded to make the Internal Review Decision without waiting to receive the further medical evidence that Miss Isbister said she wanted to provide;
(c)half an hour later, Miss Isbister contacted the NDIA by telephone to inform it that she was “very disappointed” with the decision, explaining that she had a heart impairment. The notes record that the NDIA staff member advised Miss Isbister to contact the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and that Miss Isbister had terminated the call;
(d)on 27 March 2023, Miss Isbister uploaded further supporting medical evidence with the NDIA;
(e)on 29 March 2023, Miss Isbister had contacted the NDIA to advise that she had provided further information;
(f)on 13 April 2023, a staff member of the NDIA called Miss Isbister to seek clarification as to whether she wanted to make a new access request;
(g)on 24 April 2023, Miss Isbister contacted the NDIA and informed it that she had been trialling new medication which were not working, and she may need to cease taking this medication;
(h)on 28 April 2023, the NDIA records that the NDIA had received a “valid access request” on 28 April 2023;
(i)on 8 May 2023, Miss Isbister contacted the NDIA to seek an update about the status of her application for access, and was advised by the NDIA that it was still in progress;
(j)on 17 May 2023, the Second Access Decision was made and posted to Miss Isbister and an NDIA staff member spoke to Miss Isbister. An explanation was provided to Miss Isbister about the Second Access Decision and details given as to the information that was required for her to meet the access criteria;
(k)on 18 May 2023 in a further telephone conversation, after the matter was escalated internally, the records indicate that Miss Isbister was advised that a request for an explanation of the decision had been sent to her, and she should receive that within 28 days. Miss Isbister was advised that she could discuss this letter with her treating specialists and then contact the NDIA National Call Centre to request an internal review of the Second Access Decision. She was advised that if after the internal review, she is still not happy with the Second Access Decision, she may contact the AAT for an external review;
(l)on 29 May 2023, a staff member of the NDIA contacted Miss Isbister by telephone to explain the Second Access Decision. Miss Isbister requested a written explanation and information for an appeal; and
(m)on 5 June 2023, Miss Isbister contacted the NDIA to request help from the Local Area Coordinator (LAC) to appeal the “access not met decision”. The LAC explained the process for an AAT application and informed her that 28 days had passed, so she would need to apply for an extension of time and could do it over the telephone or online.
Two days later, on 7 June 2023, Miss Isbister lodged, online, an AAT application for review of decision in relation to the Internal Review Decision.
At the EOT Hearing, Miss Isbister clarified that the reasons why she was delayed in making the application for review of decision to the Tribunal was that: “I get confused. I don’t understand instructions properly”. She said she misunderstood what she needed to do. Miss Isbister told the Tribunal that when she was at school that she had learning difficulties and was provided with a teacher’s aid to help her to read and write. She said she was required to pull out of school midway through Year 9. This information was consistent with Miss Isbister’s general presentation at the EOT Hearing. The multi-layered processes of review that apply to an NDIS decision are not straightforward and are capable of leading to confusion for those using them, even with prospective participants or participants with a reasonably good level of general comprehension. Added to this, as mentioned in the EOT Application, and as expanded upon at the EOT Hearing, Miss Isbister’s evidence was that she had been unwell due to her liver problems causing her to feel exhausted and to experience stomach problems since February 2023.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Miss Isbister about her feeling unwell due to her liver problems as from at least February 2023. The Tribunal also accepts that she was confused about the correct process for her seeking review of the NDIA’s access decisions. Miss Isbister has been in constant contact with the NDIA seeking to agitate her claim that she does meet the access criteria and should be granted access. Miss Isbister also explained at the EOT Hearing that before lodging the AAT application for review, that she had taken steps to speak to her heart specialist and physiotherapist to seek their opinion about whether they thought that she should seek review of the NDIA’s decision not to grant her access. This appears to be consistent with the advice that was given to her by a staff member of the NDIA on 18 May 2023, albeit it seems in relation to the Second Access Decision – see paragraph [24(k)]. Miss Isbister said she wanted to speak to those specialists before lodging a review so that she was “not wasting anyone’s time”.
The Tribunal considers that the three reasons cited by Miss Isbister at the EOT Hearing constitute a reasonable explanation as to why she was delayed in making the application for review of decision to the Tribunal until 7 June 2023. It seems that Miss Isbister has misunderstood the relevant processes available to her and in the context of feeling unwell during this period. It seems that Miss Isbister has been side-tracked by taking a different path of making a new access request to the NDIA, rather than (or as well as) seeking review by the Tribunal of the Internal Review Decision and submitting additional evidence as part of that process.
Based on the explanation for the delay given by Miss Isbister at the EOT Hearing, the Tribunal considers that this factor weighs in favour of granting the EOT Application.
Thirdly, while it is not appropriate when deciding this EOT Application for the Tribunal to make any final determination about the issues arising in the substantive application, it is appropriate to form a preliminary view about the prospects of Miss Isbister succeeding, if this application for review was to proceed.
The decision sought to be reviewed in the substantive application, is a decision by a “reviewer” confirming an earlier decision by a delegate of the CEO, not to grant access to Miss Isbister to become a participant in the NDIS. The Tribunal has considered the medical and clinical evidence already lodged with the Tribunal about Miss Isbister’s claimed impairments arising from numerous medical conditions and symptoms. Upon gleaning the Internal Review Decision, the NDIA’s main reason for not granting access is because the “reviewer” reached a view that there is a paucity of evidence demonstrating whether Miss Isbister’s claimed impairments are, or likely to be, permanent and also whether any one or more of them have resulted in substantially reduced functional capacity in any one or more of the six prescribed activities prescribed under s 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
If the matter proceeds to a substantive hearing, this evidence will need to be tested through the process of cross-examination. However, the mere existence of the medical and allied health reports and letters is sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal at this preliminary stage that the substantive application is not without merit and is, at least, arguable. This should not be taken as the Tribunal having formed a firm view as to whether Miss Isbister’s case would ultimately be successful if she were permitted to bring her application for review before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal concludes that this factor weighs in favour of granting the EOT Application.
Fourthly, the Tribunal will consider whether there was any prejudice suffered by the delay in Miss Isbister making the application for review. At the EOT Hearing, the Tribunal asked the NDIA’s representatives what, if any, prejudice it has suffered as a result of the delay. The NDIA’s representative was unable to identify any prejudice to the NDIA as a consequence of the delay.
The NDIA contends that Miss Isbister has rested on her rights, in terms of not pursuing a review by the Tribunal. Ms Zdilar said that Miss Isbister had been advised about making an application and in relation to the need to provide more evidence. The NDIA invited the Tribunal to find that Miss Isbister has rested on her rights. The Tribunal does not accept this contention. In view of the entries in the Interaction Notes as summarised at paragraph [24] above, the Tribunal can see that since the date of the Internal Review Decision, Miss Isbister (or a representative on her behalf), has been actively engaging with the NDIA by telephone to make enquires about her request for access and to provide further information. The Tribunal is satisfied that the NDIA was aware at all times that Miss Isbister was actively seeking to challenge the Internal Review Decision. The Tribunal notes there was confusion on Miss Isbister’s part, as to the correct processes involved and how to approach her quest for gaining access to the NDIS, but as demonstrated by the Interaction Notes, the Tribunal is satisfied that Miss Isbister was not resting on her rights during the period of the delay in lodging the application for review with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal concludes that this factor weighs in favour of granting the EOT Application.
Fifthly, the public interest gives rise to an expectation that parties will observe statutory time frames when seeking review before this Tribunal.
On behalf of the NDIA, Ms Zdilar contended that it may be unfair to other applicants if an extension of time was granted to Miss Isbister. The Tribunal asked Ms Zdilar is she could provide any specific examples of when another person was not granted an extension of time in similar circumstances to Miss Isbister involving a similar period of delay in lodgement. Ms Zdilar said she was unable to do so.
The Tribunal considers the delay of approximately six and half weeks after the expiry of the statutory time limit, is not considerable. The Tribunal does not accept the NDIA’s contention that it may be unfair to other persons if the Tribunal granted an extension to Miss Isbister as this contention was unsupported by any evidence or references to other decisions by the AAT.
The Tribunal is not able to conclude that this factor should weigh against the granting of the EOT Application, as contended by the NDIA.
Sixthly, the NDIS Act is beneficial legislation. In this case, if it is assumed that Miss Isbister is able to prove that her functionality is impacted by the numerous claimed impairments, it follows that she has a considerable disability for which she is seeking support under the NDIS. She lives alone and does not have any children. The NDIA was invited to make a submission about this proposition at the EOT Hearing. Ms Zdilar said that there was no submission the NDIA proposed to make about the consideration the Tribunal should give to this factor.
The Tribunal concludes that this factor weighs in favour of granting the EOT Application.
Finally, the NDIA contends that there is an alternative avenue of review open to the Miss Isbister being that at any time, she may make a new request for access to the NDIS.
The Tribunal notes that Miss Isbister may also, if she wanted to, request review by a “reviewer” under s 100 of the NDIS Act, of the Second Access Decision made on 17 May 2023. The statutory time limit for her to do so is three months.
The NDIA contends that once further evidence is obtained about Miss Isbister’s impairments, a new access request would be “a more expedient and straight forward way of seeking access”. The NDIA contends that it would also give Ms Isbister “the same review rights as their previous request”. The Tribunal agrees with the second of those propositions. However, the Tribunal does not regard the right of Miss Isbister to seek internal review of the Second Access Decision, or the right to make a new access request at any time, to be true alternatives to her seeking a detailed merits review by the Tribunal which will involve a comprehensive alternative dispute resolution process and if the matter does not resolve, a substantive hearing where the position and evidence put forward by both parties will be thoroughly tested through the process of examining the evidence and submissions at a substantive hearing.
At the EOT Hearing, Miss Isbister interjected when the Tribunal was addressing this factor with the NDIA to make it clear to the Tribunal that she would rather the decision about whether she should be granted access, to go to the Tribunal to be reviewed.
The Tribunal notes that the NDIA has decided on three occasions since March 2023, and most recently on 17 May 2023, that Miss Isbister does meet the access criteria under the NDIS Act. The Tribunal does not regard any further review by a delegate of the CEO of the NDIA to be an alternative right of review akin to merits review as conducted by this Tribunal.
The NDIA refers to two decisions made by other members of this Tribunal in Hassan and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1629 and Macdonald and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 2459 at [67]. The Tribunal is not bound by those decisions. When exercising its discretion under s 27(9) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal must consider each matter based on its individual circumstances and must reach its own view as to how to apply the individual facts to the relevant statutory provisions under s 29 of the AAT Act.
In the circumstances of this matter and for the reasons stated in paragraphs [45] to [47] above, the Tribunal does not accept the NDIA’s contention that there are “alternative avenues of review” available to Miss Isbister, and that this factor should weigh heavily against granting the EOT Application. The Tribunal concludes that this factor does not weigh at all against granting the EOT Application.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the factors referred to in paragraphs [29], [33], [36] and [42] above, all weighing in favour of granting an extension of time, the Tribunal has reached a state of satisfaction that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time under s 29(7) of the AAT Act to Miss Isbister to make this application for review of the Internal Review Decision, on 7 June 2023.
I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member K. Parker.
...................[sgd].....................................................
Associate
Dated: 18 July 2023
Date of hearing: 17 July 2023 Applicant: In person Respondent: Ms Mary Zdilar
In-house Lawyer, National Disability Insurance Scheme
0
4
0