Kleine and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)
[2025] ARTA 2284
•30 October 2025
Kleine and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2284 (30 October 2025)
Applicant/s: Kleine
Respondent: CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2024/0300
Tribunal:General Member N Purcell
Place:Sydney
Date:30 October 2025
Decision:The Tribunal, pursuant to section 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the following orders:
The following supports are reasonable and necessary and should be included in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports:1.
13 hours of support worker assistance per week which can be used flexibly for cleaning / domestic tasks.a.
4 hours for garden and yard maintenance per month.b.
40 hours of Occupational Therapy per year.c.
Funding for concrete pathways at front of Applicant’s property (approximately $15,182.15 as per previous quote) and subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination comprising: d.
Removal and disposal of existing pavers at front entry;i.
Installation of concrete pathway from driveway to front door; andii.
Installation of concrete pathway along the front of the garden to access power board and pump taps.iii.
Funding for access path to fire-pit area (approximately $7,014,50 as per previous quote) and subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.e.
Funding for widening of pantry door (approximately $1,708.68 as per previous quote) and subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.f.
Funding for project waste disposal, insurance and management costs of modifications found to be reasonable and necessary, subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.g.
Funding for the accessible related component of the 40-foot boat mooring fee, subject to the provision of itemised quotes and calculation (as set out in paragraph 5(a) of this decision) for a delegate’s determination.h.
Threshold rubber wedge ramps for front and rear doors, subject to the provision of two itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.i.
Shower insert and ramp (including removal of shower screen door and installation of weighted shower curtain), subject to the provision of two itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.j.
All other supports in the Applicant’s current plan, excepting any one-off assistive technology supports already used, are to be replicated pro-rata from the date on which the supports specified above are included in the Applicant's SOPS.2.
Plan management is to remain self-managed. 3.
....................[SGD]....................................................
General Member N Purcell
CATCHWORDS
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – participant supports – transitional supports rules – NDIS support – standard items – home modifications.
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)
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 (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024.
CASES
Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165
Esber v The Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 430
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79
Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544
QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114
NZGW and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1035SECONDARY MATERIALS
Operational Guidelines – Reasonable and Necessary supports, 28 March 2025.
Operational Guidelines – Home Modifications, 4 June 2025
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is a 46 year old man who lives with a spinal cord injury and uses a manual wheelchair to mobilise. He runs his own welding fabrication business in regional Victoria, employing three staff. The Applicant works long hours, continues to ‘work the tools’ and spends significant amounts of time tending to his three-acre regional property. The Applicant lives with his partner and her three teenage children who spend half their time at their father’s home. The Applicant and his family enjoy spending recreational time on his boat which is moored at a local marina.
Decisions under review
On 20 September 2023, a delegate of the Respondent approved a statement of participant supports (SOPS) under section 33(2) of the NDIS Act for a 12-month period. On 14 November 2023, the Applicant requested an internal review of the decision. On 11 January 2024, a different delegate of the Respondent affirmed the original decision.
On 17 January 2024, the Applicant filed an application seeking external review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) pursuant to section 103(1) of the NDIS Act. The AAT was abolished on 13 October 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) began on the 14 October 2024. By virtue of the transitional arrangements, Mr Kleine’s application was automatically transferred to the ART.[1]
[1] See Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth).
As the application for review was still before the Tribunal when the Applicant’s plan fell due for reassessment, the Applicant’s current plan was varied on 28 August 2025, providing a new re-assessment date of 28 August 2026 pursuant to section 47A(1)(a)(i) and 47A(1A)(a) of the NDIS Act.
Requested supports
The following supports were agreed to between the parties prior to and during the hearing. The agreed modifications at (d) to (f) below were recommended and/or endorsed by both the Applicant’s treating Occupational Therapist (OT) Ms Kate Prust and the independent OT Ms Ira Gauvin:
(a)Accessible related component of mooring fee[2] for 40-foot boat in a marina using the following calculation: the accessible related component = current annual cost of the current 12-meter birth with 8-meter-long finger jetty at Slip-Bight Marina minus the average annual costs of at least two other 12-meter birth with 4-meter finger jetty options. The funding is subject to the provision of at least 3 quotes (including Slip-Bight Marina) from marinas within an 80 km radius of Applicant’s property which include the following information:
[2] This relates to the need for sufficiently wide walkway, an 8-meter long finger jetty for the Applicant to access the boat (as opposed to a standard 4 meter long finger jetty which would not allow level access) and clean, private (restricted access) bathroom facilities which are accessible. Schedule 2, Item 4(h) of the Transitional Supports Rules prohibits the funding of “costs associated with recreational sports and activities, including membership costs, venue hire fees, uniforms ands footwear”. It was accepted by both parties that the regular costs associated with maintaining a 40ft boat, including mooring rental and operational fees at a marina, are not NDIS supports. The current fees at Slip Bight marina are about $4787 per year.
(i)Itemised annual cost of 12-meter birth with 4 meter finger jetty (or closest equivalent)
(ii)Itemised annual cost of 12-meter birth with 8 meter finger jetty (or closest equivalent)
(iii)Confirmation in writing from the marina operator of the accessibility features of the marina generally (e.g., width of walkways and/or stepless walkways) and the accessibility of toilets and showers including whether they are public and/or private facilities (e.g., restricted to marina members). If another marina has comparable private bathroom facilities to Slip-Bight Marina and is otherwise accessible, the cheapest option should be used for the purpose of the calculation.
(b)40 hours of OT per year
(c)Changing the composition of support worker assistance funding to 13 hours per week which can be used flexibly for personal care and domestic / cleaning tasks around the home.
(d)Concrete pathways at front of property (approximately $15,182.15 and subject to itemised, updated quotes as set out in order) comprising:[3]
(i)Removal and disposal of existing pavers at front entry
(ii)Installation of concrete pathway from driveway to front door
(iii)Installation of concrete pathway along the front of the garden to access power board and pump taps.
(e)Access path to fire pit area (approximately $7,014.50 and subject to itemised, updated quotes as set out in order).[4]
(f)Widening of pantry door (approximately $1708.68 and subject to itemised, updated quotes as set out in order).[5]
(g)Project waste disposal, insurance and management costs of modifications found to be reasonable and necessary by the Tribunal, subject to itemised updated quotes as set out in order.
[3] See Repair Build quote at TB10 of JHB, p339 including line items 10 and 11 ($3,580.20 + $11,601.95)
[4] See Corey’s Dingo works quote dated 24 July 2024, JHB, p341.
[5] See Repair Build quote at TB10 of JHB, p339 including line items33 – 35 ($675.12 + $400.20 + 633.36).
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that these supports, as agreed, are reasonable and necessary.
Issues in dispute
The Tribunal must determine whether the Applicant’s requests for funding of the following supports are reasonable and necessary pursuant to section 34 of the NDIS Act and any relevant rules.
(a)Maintenance costs for a forklift and excavator - $1,600.00 per year
(b)Log splitter - $3,800.00
(c)Quad bike - $26,706.99 plus annual maintenance of $500.00
(d)Ride on mower - $7,380.00
(e)Installation of wider front door, security door and removal of door frame/sill – approximately $5900.[6]
(f)Installation of wider rear door and removal of door frame/sill – approximately $6,800.[7]
(g)Bathroom modifications – approximately $37,000[8] to $67,000.[9]
[6] See quote of Repair Build TB10 of JHB, p339 including line items 12 – 16.
[7] See quote of Repair Build TB10 of JHB, p339 including line items 5 – 9.
[8] See quotes from Repair Build TB10, p337 and TB11 at JHB, p339.
[9] See quote from TJM Building, TB13 of JHB, p342.
The hearing
The Applicant represented himself at hearing. The Respondent was represented by Mr Joshua Lessing of Counsel and instructed by Mills Oakley lawyers.
The hearing was conducted by video over 2 days. The Applicant and independent OT, Ms Ira Gauvin gave oral evidence. At a prior telephone directions hearing on 7 March 2025, the Applicant confirmed he had received legal advice and did not wish to call any other witnesses.
Ms Gauvin’s report dated 24 April 2024 was completed in accordance with the Tribunal’s guidelines on persons giving expert evidence. She has a Bachelor degree in OT from La Trobe University and a Master degree in Communications from Bond University. Her CV indicates experience across a range of roles including assessments, rehabilitation, and injury management.[10] She told the Tribunal she has over 30 years of experience including assessing and recommending bathroom modifications.
[10] JHB, p378-380.
Ms Prust did not include any information about her qualifications or experience in her report dated 25 August 2023.
In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal has considered all the written evidence provided in the joint hearing bundle (admitted and marked ‘JHB’) and the oral evidence given at the hearing. A brief supplementary report from Ms Ira Gauvin was admitted and marked E1.
The Tribunal will refer to the evidence that is directly relevant to the determination of this matter.
Role of the Tribunal
In reviewing the decision:
(a)the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the delegate/internal reviewer and must make the correct or preferable decision based upon the evidence and other material before it;[11] and
(b)the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is determined by reference to the scope of the internal reviewer’s powers under section 100 of the NDIS Act, which is in turn informed by the scope of power under section 33(2) of the NDIS Act.[12]
[11] See Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [37]-[38], [45]-[46] (Kirby J), [99] (Hayne and Heydon JJ), [143] (Kiefel J). Esber v The Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 430 at 440; Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at [51]; QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189.
[12] QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189 at [7].
The relevant provisions under the new Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) are sections 54 and 105.
RELEVANT LAW
The NDIS was established under the NDIS Act. Its objectives are set out in section 3 and its general principles guiding actions taken under the NDIS Act are set out in section 4. Section 3(1)(c) and (g) relevantly states the objectives of the Act are to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability and to promote the provision of high quality and innovative supports that enable people with disability to maximise independent lifestyles and full inclusion in the community.
A participant’s plan must include a statement of participant supports, approved in accordance with section 33 of the NDIS Act, and any rules made under the NDIS Act.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Amending Act) came into force on 3 October 2024. Significant changes include the following:
(a)Section 10 introduced a definition of NDIS support.
(b)Section 34(1)(aa) provides that a support must be necessary to address needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability or early intervention requirements.
(c)Section 34(1)(f) stipulates a support must be a NDIS support.
Item 129(1) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act specifies that changes to sections 33, 34 and 35 apply in relation to a statement of participant supports included in an old framework plan for a participant if the statement is approved or varied on or after commencement. The Minister also made transitional rules which accompany changes to the NDIS Act and take effect from 3 October 2024.
These changes apply to the Applicant’s SOPS and must be considered by the Tribunal.[13]
[13] Subitem 129(2) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that if a statement of participant supports is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, the amendments apply irrespective of whether the Applicant’s plan came into effect before, or on or after commencement.
Subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act now relevantly states:
(1)For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
(aa)the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);
(a)the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations;
(b)the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant’s social and economic participation;
(c)the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;
(d)the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e)the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
(f)the support is an NDIS support for the participant.
Note: For the purposes of paragraph (aa):
(a) the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and
(b) a participant’s disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs (1)(aa) to (f).
The Tribunal must be positively satisfied about each of the matters set out in section 34(1) of the Act.[14] The Applicant carries what has been described as a common sense or practical onus to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal the criteria are met.[15]
[14] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at [201].
[15] For example, Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165 at [68] (North, Tracey and Mortimer JJ).
Under subsection 209(1) of the Act, the Minister may make rules prescribing certain matters including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) (‘the Supports Rules’).
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (‘the Transitional Supports Rules’) introduce several key changes. Schedule 1 identifies supports that are considered NDIS supports while Schedule 2 identifies those that are not considered NDIS supports.
The NDIS Operational Guidelines are also relevant to making decisions in accordance with the Act. Operational Guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[16]
[16] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at [635].
EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERATION
The recent decision of FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114 describes the procedure for considering certain supports since the Amended Act came into effect on 3 October 2024.
- Having regard to the provisions of the principal Act as amended, the Transitional Rules, and the Supports Rules, the structure of the enquiry involved in this review involves two stages and the following steps:
Stage 1 Ascertain if the requested support is an “NDIS” Support as defined. This inquiry is focused on the support, not the participant.
Step 1: Determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table.
If the answer to that question is “yes”, then stage 1 is complete. The requested support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for inclusion in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f) (subject to a replacement support determination being made, as to which see following).
If the answer to that question is “no”, then proceed to step 2 of stage 1:
Step 2: Determine if the requested support is of a character capable of falling within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that can fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of that Table.
If the answer to that question is “no”, then the requested support will not be a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for including in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f).
If the answer to that question is “yes”, then the requested support will be a NDIS Support that is capable of being approved for inclusion in a SoPS by operation of s 34(1)(f), and stage 2 of the enquiry is reached.
Stage 2: Ascertain if the requested support satisfies each of the other criteria specified in s 34(1)(aa) to (e) and the associated Supports Rules. There is some overlap of the stage 1 and 2 enquiries. However, in my opinion stage 2 is primarily a participant focused enquiry. That is, it seeks to establish the benefit of the support to the participant. To the extent that stage 2 also requires examination of the efficacy of the support per se it adds nothing to the outcome of the stage 1 enquiry in my opinion.
- The question of whether a requested support is, or is not, a NDIS support is a mixed question of fact and law. The issue of fact to be determined is whether the requested support falls within a category of items specified in column 1 of the Tables to Schedules 1 and 2 of the Transitional Rules. If it does, it will either be, or not be, a NDIS support by operation of law.
- It is important to observe that in the scheme of the Transitional Rules it is not sufficient to find that a support is not excluded as a NDIS Support by operation Schedule 2. It must also be found to be included as a NDIS Support by Schedule 1. That is, both Schedules have work to do in determining what is not a NDIS Support. To illustrate this point using absurd examples, a giraffe, hot-air balloon, and space craft are not excluded as NDIS supports by Schedule 2, but they are incapable of falling into any of the categories of NDIS Supports in Schedule 1. They are therefore not NDIS Supports by operation of Schedule 1, rather than Schedule 2.
- If a requested support is not a NDIS Support by operation of the Transitional Rules, the criteria specified by s 34(1)(f) of the principal Act as amended cannot be satisfied. Section 34(1) is conjunctive in its terms, as is indicated by use of the words ‘the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following ...’ (emphasis added). As each of the requirements of s 34(1) must be met before a support can be approved for inclusion in a SoPS there is no utility in considering if the requested support meets the other requirements of that section. The enquiry ends with the determination that the requested support is not a NDIS support.
Where relevant, the Tribunal will consider the requested supports in line with this approach. This does not necessitate a detailed recalling of the evidence presented at hearing.
At the outset, the Tribunal would like to acknowledge the ingenuity and independence with which the Applicant has managed his relatively large property over several years – most of which has been self-funded. It was apparent that he is an industrious and hard-working individual.
Request for forklift and excavator maintenance costs
The Applicant’s OT, Ms Kate Prust set out the grounds for the Applicant’s request with respect to forklift and excavator maintenance costs.
Excavator – Chris cannot use a spade to dig holes or clear paths due to his wheelchair mobility. As his wheelchair is lightweight and is not designed with brakes, it also does not have any purchase when Chris is using his arms and trying to gain leverage or force to complete digging tasks. When he pushes, his wheelchair moves rather than the item he is trying to move. Chris is also unable to lift and carry heavy items due to his need to use his arms to propel his wheelchair mobility and it is not possible or practical to place heavy or awkward items on his lap. Thus, Chris relies on his excavator 1-2 times per week for the following tasks:
- Lifting heavy pieces of wood onto his log splitter to split wood for his wood fired heater.
- Lifting and moving pieces of equipment or items of debris around his home and property. This includes removing obstacles prior to completing his lawn mowing.
- Clearing land and independently creating safe paths of travel for him to use for wheelchair mobility around his property.
Forklift – Chris is not able to push/pull other items while seated in his wheelchair as the force of the push/pull against a heavier object invariably makes his wheelchair move instead. Chris is dependent on his forklift that he utilises 3-4 times a week for the following tasks around his property:
- Moving his trailers into position on the back of his car and lifting onto/off of the tow ball.
- Moving his caravan into position at the back of his car and lifting onto/off of the tow ball.
- Moving his boat trailer into position at the back of his car and lifting onto/off of the tow ball.
- Relocating trailers and caravan for storage when not in use.
- Moving his log splitter to other locations around the property for wood splitting tasks.[17]
[17] TB5 of JHB, p82.
The Respondent contends that the requested items are prohibited by Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules. The Respondent submits that because the equipment is used for maintenance of the property, it is excluded by Item 1(e). The Respondent further submits that a machine of some type is inherently required to complete tasks like clearing the land or carting heavy objects and therefore the support is not necessary to address the needs of the Applicant arising from an impairment in relation to which he meets the disability requirements pursuant to section 34(1)(aa). In the Respondent’s submission, the equipment is required by virtue of the size and type of property owned by the Applicant.
Item 1 of Schedule 2 covers day-to-day living related to accommodation and household which relevantly states:
(e) standard home repairs, home improvements, standard renovations and maintenance;
…
(i) standard household (including garden) items, appliances, tools and products
A standard item is one “that is not modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant or prospective participant”.[18] As this Tribunal found in NZGW and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1035,[19] section 4 requires a specific modification or adjustment to the item itself which addresses, or responds to, the functional impairments of the individual participant.
[18] See section 4 of the Transitional Support Rules
[19] See [80] – [85].
Further, Schedule 2, Item 6 excludes:
(b) vehicles, including motor vehicles, motorbikes, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles, standard bikes and scooters, and other recreational vehicles;
…
(d) mechanical repairs (except for repairs to vehicle modifications funded under any plan for the participant), automotive tools.
The Macquarie dictionary defines vehicle as “any receptacle, or means of transport, in which something is carried or conveyed, or travels”.
The Tribunal is satisfied a forklift and excavator are vehicles.
There was no evidence the forklift or excavator have been specifically adapted or modified to address the needs of the Applicant.
By reason of Item 1(e) and (i) and Item 6 (b) and (d) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Supports Rules the requested funding for machinery to conduct maintenance and gardening around the Applicant’s property / yard is not a NDIS support and therefore section 34(1)(f) is not met.
Request for Log splitter, Quad bike and annual maintenance and Ride on mower.
Ms Prust also provided evidence that the Applicant uses his log splitter at least once a week for use in his wood fire heater. He uses the excavator to load larger logs on the splitter and the forklift to move the splitter to various locations on his property. The Applicant independently loads the smaller wood pieces into a trailer on the back of his quad bike to move the load of wood closer to his house.[20] The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that he has owned these pieces of equipment for many years and self-funded their purchase and maintenance.[21]
[20] T5 of JHB, p82.
[21] See also T5 of JHB, p83.
Ms Gauvin opined that a log splitter is a standard piece of equipment used for firewood preparation.[22] She also explained that an excavator is traditionally used for digging and lifting heavy items and would be required for the types of tasks described by Ms Prust regardless of whether the person has a disability or not.[23]
[22] JHB, p370.
[23] JHB, p371.
The Applicant gave evidence that he has purchased various pieces of equipment which suit his disability needs, for example, a zero-turn ride on lawn mower which has hand controls. However, he confirmed the equipment has not been specifically modified or adapted for him.
The Tribunal finds that the quad bike and maintenance is excluded as a NDIS support by Item 6(b) and (d) of Schedule 2.
The Tribunal finds the ride on mower is a standard garden item or tool. Consequently, it is excluded as a NDIS support by Item 1(i) of Schedule 2.
The Tribunal finds the log splitter is a standard garden item or tool. It is also not a NDIS support because of Item 1(i) of Schedule 2.
Section 34(1)(f) is not met with respect to the quad bike, ride on mower and log splitter.
Installation of wider doors and removal of sill / frame
The Applicant told the Tribunal he wants to remove door sill and/or frames to allow level access into his home at the front and rear. He confirmed that the width of the doors does not impede his access.
Front door
In her August 2023 report, Ms Prust recommended the installation of a wider front door with a minimum clear opening of 900mm.[24]
[24] TB9 of JHB, p309.
Ms Prust noted the Applicant “has excellent wheelchair handlings skills and strongly prefers to tilt his wheelchair to mount or lower himself down single steps rather than use a ramp”.[25] The Applicant’s wheelchair is 600mm wide[26] and 900mm long.[27] He was observed to use “extreme upper limb force” when mobilising through thick grass around his property.[28]
[25] TB9 of JHB, p297.
[26] TB9 of JHB, p299
[27] Applicant’s oral evidence.
[28] TB9 of JHB, p311.
Ms Prust included a photo of the front door which the Tribunal considers represents a fairly typical entry to an Australian home, including a small step and a door sill (where the door closes into place). The width of the door is 700mm and the Applicant told the Tribunal he can independently manoeuvre through this doorway.
Ms Prust did not include measurements in her report, however the Tribunal asked the Applicant to measure the height of the front door sill. He told the Tribunal it sits about 3.8cm high when inside the home and about 5.5cm from the top of the brick step on the outside of the home.
As mentioned above, the Respondent has agreed to fund a concrete pathway from the driveway up an incline to the front entry. The Tribunal understands from the Applicant’s oral evidence and Ms Prust’s report that the pathway will include level landings at various intervals including the top of the pathway near the door. The top-level landing will essentially meet the top of the brick, effectively removing the current step which is about the height of standard brick. The width of the sill was not measured but looks to be about 15cm wide from the photos in evidence.
The Applicant gave evidence he would not be able to clear the door sill approximately 5.5cm high, even if the floor was flat on either side. He contends his front wheels will get caught. This was confusing to the Tribunal noting the Applicant’s own evidence that clearing a step or obstacle requires the Applicant to tilt his wheelchair back, lifting the front wheels while he propels over the step. This confusion was compounded by the Applicant’s current ability to clear the whole step, which will be removed by a concrete path.
The Applicant claimed that a building contractor told him that widening the doorway would not create any additional cost beyond the cost of removing the sill (to make it a completely flat entrance.) The Tribunal does not accept this argument, noting a completely new security door and wooden door would be required for the wider entrance.
Ms Gauvin gave oral evidence that a small ramp wedge could be trialled and used at the front door, to make the entrance completely flat over the sill, however she was unsure this was necessary given the size of the obstruction and the Applicant’s very capable wheelchair skills.
Rear door
Ms Prust included two photos of the rear door sliding door entry. The clear opening is 800mm wide. Ms Prust indicated the step at the back door is 8cm high plus 4cm of sliding door frame, totalling 12cm.[29] The width of the step / frame was not measured but also looks to be about 15 – 20cm.
[29] TB9 of JHB, p311-312.
The photos show a large and open concreted patio outside the home, with no obstructions near the doorway. The dining room table inside the rear entry appears to sit at least 1 metre, though probably more, from the doorway. It is a large and spacious home, with the dining room alone approximately 4.5m x 5.5m in size.[30]
[30] JHB, p331.
Ms Prust recommended removal of the existing sliding door and surrounding windows to allow for an inset frame, which would facilitate level entrance. She also recommended the installation of two-panelled door/window with clear opening of 1100mm when approached from outside.[31]
[31] TB9 of JHB, p313.
Ms Prust justified her recommendations as follows:
Chris is able to and prefers to wheel himself up the single brick height into his home. His manual wheelchairs have been designed to enable mobility over a single step and Chris is skilled in this movement. However, the current frame on the sliding door at his back access interferes with the landing point of his front castor wheels when he is entering his home, causing a constant risk that Chris’s wheelchair will become stuck or move in unpredictable ways, potentially causing him to tip out during the transition across this threshold.
In addition, given the future trajectory of Chris’s disability when coupled with the aging process, Chris may require a power wheelchair in future and therefore will benefit from having a wider clear opening for safe wheelchair access with a mobility device with a larger footprint.[32]
[32] TB9 of JHB, p313.
There was no evidence that the Applicant has ever tipped out during transition across the threshold. The Applicant gave evidence that his wheelchair gets stuck on occasion, and he has transitioned to the floor to dislodge the chair. Ms Gauvin gave evidence that she observed the Applicant use the tilt manoeuvre when entering/exiting the home and push his wheelchair over uneven terrain around the property.
Ms Prust reported the Applicant does not like ramps because he does not have brakes on his wheelchair. She suggested he would not be able to manage keys and open doors while using a ramp because of the risk of rolling back.[33] Ms Prust also claimed a ramp would interfere with the circulation space in the outdoor area. Having observed the photo of the outdoor space and a floor map of the property, the Tribunal does not accept this claim.[34]
[33] TB9 of JHB, p313.
[34] JHB, p313-314.
Ms Gauvin wrote in her report:
With regard to rear access, rather than major modifications which may be required to be modified again in the future for a powered wheelchair, given Ms Prust has suggested the step remain as per Mr Kleine’s preference, a threshold rubber wedge ramp or other ramp should be considered and trialled leading into the house. Whilst I understand Mr Kleine has a preference to avoid ramps, this should still be considered. It is also important to note that ramp is being proposed at the front access.[35]
[35] JHB, p369-370.
Ms Gauvin provided a link to Tyrex which is a provider of rubber wedge ramps.[36] The website photos show a range of products which can be customised. They are described on the website as follows:
Whether you’re managing a doorway step, uneven flooring, or a small ledge, these ramps provide a smooth and stable transition for wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs, walkers, and general foot traffic.
Made from heavy-duty, slip-resistant recycled rubber, they’re manufactured for long-term performance in all environments. Each ramp is weather-resistant, UV-stable, and won’t crack or corrode—making them ideal for both indoor and outdoor use.
[36] See
The Tribunal observes the product options are varied, including options for tapered edges and a flat surface. Ms Gauvin gave evidence that a flat landing would avoid the risk of roll-back when opening doors.
The Applicant also asserted a wedge ramp would interfere with circulation space around the rear door. Ms Gauvin gave evidence the dining room table could be moved if necessary, noting the large size of the room. She conceded the space was not measured but noted she had access to a floor plan and observed no inbuilt furniture in the room.
Ms Gauvin told the Tribunal wedge ramps cost in the vicinity of $1500.
The Tribunal makes the following findings:
(a)The Applicant is a very experienced wheelchair user who currently manoeuvres around a large property and routinely clears a step at both the front and rear entrances.
(b)The Applicant does not currently need wider doorways as he can independently move through the doorways in his wheelchair.
(c)Widening doors would involve the additional expense of purchasing new, larger doors.
(d)The approved concrete pathway at the front of the home will remove the step at the front door, thus leaving a relatively small obstacle over the door frame / sill.
(e)There is sufficient circulation space at the rear door for a customised wedge ramp to effectively remove the step, by creating a level platform adjacent to the door. The Tribunal observes the step is higher when entering the home from the patio; an area that is completely clear.
(f)The Applicant can clear the sill / door frames in his wheelchair; however the use of wedge ramps would reduce the size of the obstruction.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the installation of the front pathway combined with one or more wedge ramps will enable the Applicant to enter and exit his home from both the front and rear of the property safely and effectively. Pursuant to Rule 3.1(a) of the Supports Rules, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the provision of funding to widen the doors and level the entries in the manner recommended by Ms Prust is value for money because there are comparable supports which will achieve the outcome at a substantially lower cost. Section 34(1)(c) is not met.
Bathroom modifications – approximately $37,000 to $67,000.
In her report dated 25 August 2023, Ms Prust wrote:
Chris is independent with all aspects of personal care. He showers and dresses on the floor of his bathroom/shower recess as this is where he is most stable and therefore most able to maintain his hygiene without the assistance of others. He is independent with toileting however is dependent on a specific environmental design to allow him to be as safe and independent as possible.[37]
[37] TB9 of JHB, p295.
She described how the Applicant showers:
Chris transfers from his wheelchair to the floor then pulls his body over the shower hob and sits on the base of the shower recess for washing himself. Chris reported the primary barrier in his bathroom is the shower hob that he drags his body over increasing his risk of injury and he would find showering easier and less hardwearing on his body if he had a stepless shower recess. Chris reported he prefers showering on the floor where he has greater control and stability compared to shower seats. Again Chris has been independent with showering in this manner since his spinal cord injury occurred and there are nil functional issues indicating he should change his methods.[38]
[38] TB9 of JHB, p298.
She noted the Applicant’s preference not to use a shower seat.[39]
[39] TB9 of JHB, p300.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that transferring over the aluminium hob caused him difficulty and posed a risk of skin and physical damage. He reported nicking his skin on the hob and getting his foot caught under the shower door – which he couldn’t feel.
Ms Prust indicated the Applicant reported minimal warning for bowel movements but that he can generally tell when he needs to go to the toilet.[40] The Applicant also told Ms Prust that he uses a catheter[41] and cleans the shower base with bleach twice per week to minimise the risk of infection.[42] Ms Prust’s report does not mention bowel accidents or incontinence.
[40] TB9 of JHB, p300.
[41] TB9 of HB, p295.
[42] TB9 of JHB, 301.
Ms Prust outlined the recommended bathroom modifications as follows:
i. Remove all existing bathroom fittings, taking care to preserve toilet suite,
toilet roll holder where possible.
ii. Remove existing ensuite door.
iii. Install cavity sliding door to bathroom with minimum clear opening of 820mm
where possible,
iv. Prepare noggins for future rail installation as required, i.e. around toilet and
shower.
v. Install level entry shower recess with 1:80 gradient towards a central
drainage point.
vi. Shower recess to be 900 x 900mm.
vii. Install glass shower screen between shower recess and toilet.
viii. Install frameless glass swing door on shower recess with 150mm gap under
door to allow for scraping of water back into recess from rest of bathroom as
required.
ix. Install mixer tap at height of 850mm from floor level.
x. Install handheld shower head with adjustable height mount.
xi. Handheld shower held should have 1500mm long hose.
xii. Install same toilet suite or similar as per existing toilet specs.
xiii. Install floor mounted vanity with inset sink with waterproof kick board, NOT
to be a semi-recessed sink. Vanity to be same or similar specs to existing
vanity in terms of position and size.
xiv. Vanity unit to be fitted with drawers where possible.
xv. Install mirror above vanity at lower height for line of sight from wheelchair as
well as for standing individual.
xvi. Reinstall toilet roll holder as per existing position.
xvii. Install R9 rated non-slip floor tiles to bathroom.
xviii. Floors to be 1:80 gradient in shower recess and 1:100 gradient in rest of
bathroom as per Australian Standards.[43]
[43] JHB, p317-318.
Ms Prust acknowledged in her report that some of the recommended bathroom modifications are not compliant with Australian Standards 1428 Design for Access and Mobility, including the minimum bathroom size and shower for disability access.[44] She noted the Applicant’s “wheelchair footprints are small and easy to manoeuvre” and his preference for:
·smaller space between vanity, toilet and shower to provide stability during transfers
·not using grab rails
·smaller shower space, which provides greater postural/stabilising support while showering.[45]
[44] JHB, p327.
[45] JHB, p318.
The Respondent contends the bathroom modifications are not reasonable and necessary because there are two alternative minor modification options available which will address the disability related accessibility issue, namely level access to the bathroom recess. The Respondent further contends that the proposed major modifications represent a standard bathroom renovation because, for example, the installation of a new vanity and bathroom door are not required because of the Applicant’s impairment.
In her report, Ms Gauvin recommended the trial of a shower insert and shower buddy.[46] Ms Gauvin told the Tribunal that both options are custom built to fit a shower.
[46] JHB, p368.
Ms Gauvin gave evidence that a shower insert is used to level out the shower recess. A photo of an example product was included in her report. It sits flush with the sides of the shower and provides level access. There are two thumb holes at the front of the insert and there appear to be smaller holes, located around the insert, presumably for drainage.[47] Ms Gauvin confirmed the inserts are custom made to detailed specifications, along with a wedge ramp external to the shower base / lip. Ms Gauvin recommended the removal of the shower screen door and use of a weighted shower curtain in its place. She estimated the insert and ramp would cost about $1500.
[47] JHB, p368.
Ms Gauvin explained that a shower buddy requires the Applicant to sit in a chair that slides in and out of the shower on a bracket / tracking system.[48] It can be separated and used as a commode over the toilet or bed. Ms Gauvin told the Tribunal she had spoken with the shower buddy manufacturer who said the system would fit the Applicant’s shower with a shower curtain in place. Having heard the evidence of both Ms Gauvin and the Applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied a shower buddy would require some manoeuvring in and out of the bathroom, because the Applicant’s partner uses the shower and there is insufficient room for it to be stored in the bathroom.
[48] See photo at JHB, p368.
The Tribunal accepts that a shower buddy may be a suitable option should the Applicant no longer be able to complete transfers on the floor due to shoulder weakness or injury in the future. However, it was clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant’s current preference is to shower on the floor. For this reason, the Tribunal will consider the shower insert as the alternative option because it is most in keeping with the Applicant’s current practice, preference, and functional capacity.
The Applicant expressed concern that removing the shower screen door and using a weighted shower curtain to accommodate a shower insert would risk the waterproofing and insurance of the bathroom. He told the Tribunal Ms Prust had engaged a building professional from RepairBuild to advise on the suitability of the modifications. The Applicant claimed the builder from RepairBuild told him that removing the shower frame or screen would compromise waterproofing and affect insurance.
Ms Gauvin gave evidence that the shower base and frame would remain in place, and only the shower screen door would be removed. She told the Tribunal she has regularly recommended weighted shower curtains over her 30-year career without issue. Ms Gauvin confirmed a building professional removes the screen door and installs the curtain rod.
It is clear to the Tribunal that the positioning of the shower curtain and the gradient of the insert would determine whether the water runs inside or outside the shower base. It is also apparent from other evidence that water is routinely present on the tiles outside the shower recess because the Applicant “pulls a lot of water out of his shower based during his transfers”.[49]
[49] JHB, p300 and 319.
The builder did not give evidence nor provide an opinion in writing as to why a shower insert, wedge ramp and/or replacement of shower door with shower curtain would interfere with insurance and/or the structural integrity or water-proofing of the bathroom. The Respondent noted the builder who provided the advice has a clear commercial interest, providing a quote for the recommended works.[50]
[50] TB11 of JHB, p339.
The Applicant expressed concerns that a shower insert and ramp would not fit properly in his shower/bathroom and would interfere with circulation space and his ability to get unchanged and dressed. As mentioned, Ms Gauvin gave evidence that the insert is custom made and the ramp can be designed in different shapes. She did not consider it would impact his ability to get dressed in the bathroom.
The Applicant claims that because his wheelchair is 900mm long, a 40mm ramp will impede the space between the shower base and the area for the door to swing shut, leaving only 710mm of available room.[51] The Tribunal observes that the Applicant can currently manoeuvre effectively with 750mm of space, including shutting the door.
[51] The calculation discussed at hearing was length of the bathroom (2720mm) – shower recess (850mm) (see page 316 of JHB – arc of door (720mm) – ramp (400) = 750mm.
Ms Gauvin estimated the height of the shower hob to be about 5cm, explaining it was a fairly standard shower base. Noting the shower ramp is for the purpose of the Applicant lifting or sliding himself into the shower rather than wheelchair transfers, Ms Gauvin’s oral evidence indicated the ramp would not need to be 40mm long. It is accepted that the Applicant’s right wheel goes relatively close to the shower base when he transfers to the toilet.[52]
[52] See JHB, p322.
The Tribunal does not accept that a customised ramp to access the shower recess will interfere with circulation space or the ability to close the door. The wheelchair can be angled in the bathroom, just as it is for toilet transfers, along with additional space in front of the bathroom vanity.[53]
[53] Ms Gauvin estimated the height of the shower hob to be about 5cm, explaining it was a fairly standard shower base. Noting the shower ramp is for the purpose of the Applicant lifting himself into the shower rather than wheelchair transfers, Ms Gauvin’s oral evidence indicates the ramp would not necessarily need to be 40mm long.
The Applicant also expressed concern he would be unable to lift the 8kg insert for cleaning. He told the Tribunal he may tip forward in his wheelchair if trying to lift the insert and that the thumb holes for lifting the insert would create differentiated pressure if he sat on one of the holes when showering.
Ms Gauvin opined that because the Applicant performs the physical job of welding, she was of the view he could manage to lift 8kg.
The Tribunal observed the Applicant lift and manoeuvre his wheelchair from a seated position on the floor when demonstrating access through the door.
Ms Gauvin noted a trial would assist to determine the preferred location for thumb holes but she did not share concerns that these would present a risk of pressure sores or other injury to the Applicant. She explained the customisation process would involve an OT providing measurements, photos and general requirements to the manufacturer and then having a follow up discussion, usually on site.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he typically has a bowel accident twice a week. He explained that he showers independently when this occurs and cleans the shower by using domestos and a stiff broom. He then hoses the shower recess out. The Applicant told the Tribunal there is a minimum shift time of 2 hours for support workers and his shower requires cleaning at least twice per week.
Ms Prust’s August 2023 report did not mention any bowel accidents, incontinence issues or the need to clean faeces from the shower recess. Mr Gauvin gave evidence that the Applicant did not mention any bowel accidents to her despite questioning him about toileting and showering issues including incontinence in April 2024. She recalled the Applicant describing the need to change catheters in the shower recess. Ms Gauvin was very clear that she took detailed notes during the assessment and would have included information in her report about any mention of the need to clean faeces from the shower recess. In his statement dated 28 May 2025, the Applicant indicated he has a bowel accident 1 – 2 times per week.[54] On the 15 August 2025, the Applicant claimed in his second statement that he typically experiences a bowel accident 2 – 3 times per week.[55]
[54] TB2 of JHB, p14.
[55] TB4 of JHB, p39.
Ms Gauvin told the Tribunal she would not recommend major modifications that are not compliant with the building code / standard. She also expressed concern that if, for example, the Applicant’s function changes in the future resulting in the need for a hoist, this would require specific space and positioning. In her view, major modifications need to cater to long term needs and adhere to accessibility standards. Ms Gauvin confirmed that in her opinion, both the insert and shower buddy system address the Applicant’s current needs and that a further re-assessment should take place if there is a change in his circumstances in the future.
The Tribunal makes the following findings:
(a)The Applicant requires level entry to his shower recess. The Applicant can otherwise use the bathroom in accordance with his needs and preferences.
(b)Several of the modifications recommended by Ms Prust are not related to the Applicant’s impairment and represent a standard home renovation.
(c)A shower insert and ramp can be customised to fit the Applicant’s shower and represents a far less expensive option than the modifications proposed by Ms Prust in terms of facilitating level access to the shower.
(d)The Tribunal is not satisfied a shower entry ramp will prevent the Applicant accessing his toilet, moving around his bathroom, and getting undressed or changed.
(e)The Tribunal is not satisfied that the removal of a shower screen door and installation of a weighted curtain will compromise the existing waterproofing or affect the Applicant’s home insurance.
(f)The Tribunal is not satisfied that two thumbholes in the shower insert will cause pressure sores or other injuries to the Applicant.
(g)The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may experience bowel accidents on occasion that require showering and associated cleaning of the shower recess, however, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that it occurs weekly.
(h)The Applicant can continue to clean the shower as described. If he needs assistance moving the insert and/or completing cleaning after a bowel accident, the Tribunal is satisfied he has sufficient levels of support worker assistance to help with those tasks.
Counsel for the Respondent acknowledged that future needs can be considered when determining what are reasonable and necessary home modifications, however contended it is a question of degree and will depend on the evidence. Counsel provided the example of someone living with a degenerative condition. He submitted that if evidence points to a clear trajectory of functional decline within a period and it is probable the person will remain living in the home, then it would be open to the Tribunal to avoid ‘re-doing’ modifications by accommodating those changing future needs now.
The Respondent accepts that the Applicant may require a power wheelchair and/or hoist at some point in the future, however submitted it was very unclear on the evidence when or if this will occur. The Respondent also contends that because the modifications recommended by Ms Prust are not compliant with the accessibility standard, the modifications may not be suitable for the Applicant’s future needs. For example, it may be the case that the main bathroom is the more suitable location for a major modification if the Applicant’s support needs change.
The Tribunal accepts these submissions.
The Tribunal is satisfied that a shower insert and ramp will likely facilitate the Applicant’s level access to the shower. Pursuant to Rule 3.1(a) of the Supports Rules, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the provision of funding to undertake a full bathroom renovation is value for money because there are comparable supports which will achieve the outcome at a substantially lower cost. Section 34(1)(c) is not met.
Alternative funding for bathroom and doorways
The Respondent indicated they would fund wedge ramps for the front and rear doors and a shower insert (including removal of shower door and installation of weighted curtain) subject to a quote.
The Applicant has 40 hours of OT funding for these products to be trialled with an OT and for recommended specifications to be provided to a manufacturer should he wish to proceed with these options.
The Tribunal is satisfied that funding for the provision of threshold rubber wedge ramps for the front and rear doors and a shower insert (including removal of shower door and installation of weighted curtain) are reasonable and necessary for the following reasons:
·The shower insert will address the need for the Applicant to have a level / stepless shower. The wedge ramps will remove or reduce the sill obstruction at the front and rear doorway, providing the Applicant with better access to his home. These needs arise from an impairment in relation to which the Applicant meets the disability requirements. Section 34(1)(aa) is met.
·These supports will assist the Applicant to pursue his goals of maintaining his independence and mobility.[56] Section 34(1)(a) is met.
·These supports will assist the Applicant to participate in social activities in and around his home. Section 34(1)(b) is met.
·The supports are significantly cheaper than the proposed modifications and appropriately address the support need. Accordingly, they represent value for money in that the cost of the supports are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alterative supports. Section 34(1)(c) is met.
·The Tribunal accepts Ms Gauvin’s expert evidence that the supports will address the needs of the Applicant and increase his mobility around the home. In that sense, the supports are effective and beneficial for the Applicant having regard to current good practice. Section 34(1)(d) is met.
·The provision of support takes account of what is reasonable for his family to provide, noting the support is to increase the Applicant’s mobility and maintain his independence. Section 34(1)(e) is met.
·The supports are NDIS supports because they are not excluded by Schedule 2 and are captured by Schedule 1, Item 9 (Assistive products for household tasks) and Item 22 (Home modification design and construction) of the Transitional Rule. Section 34(1)(f) is met.
[56] JHB, p386-387.
The Tribunal, pursuant to section 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the following orders:
1. The following supports are reasonable and necessary and should be included in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports:
a. 13 hours of support worker assistance per week which can be used flexibly for cleaning / domestic tasks.
b. 4 hours for garden and yard maintenance per month.
c. 40 hours of Occupational Therapy per year.
d. Funding for concrete pathways at front of Applicant’s property (approximately $15,182.15 as per previous quote) and subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination comprising:
i.Removal and disposal of existing pavers at front entry;
ii.Installation of concrete pathway from driveway to front door; and
iii.Installation of concrete pathway along the front of the garden to access power board and pump taps.
e. Funding for access path to fire-pit area (approximately $7,014,50 as per previous quote) and subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.
f. Funding for widening of pantry door (approximately $1,708.68 as per previous quote) and subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.
g. Funding for project waste disposal, insurance and management costs of modifications found to be reasonable and necessary, subject to the provision of two updated itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.
h. Funding for the accessible related component of the 40-foot boat mooring fee, subject to the provision of itemised quotes and calculation (as set out in paragraph 5(a) of this decision) for a delegate’s determination.
i. Threshold rubber wedge ramps for front and rear doors, subject to the provision of two itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.
j. Shower insert and ramp (including removal of shower screen door and installation of weighted shower curtain), subject to the provision of two itemised quotes for a delegate’s determination.
2. All other supports in the Applicant’s current plan, excepting any one-off assistive technology supports already used, are to be replicated pro-rata from the date on which the supports specified above are included in the Applicant's SOPS.
3. Plan management is to remain self-managed.
Date(s) of hearing: 7 – 8 October 2025 – by video Applicant: Mr Christopher Kleine Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Joshua Lessing Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley lawyers
0