Lifeful Coordination & Management Pty Ltd and National Disability Insurance Scheme

Lifeful Coordination & Management Pty Ltd (Lifeful C&M) applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) seeking review of a decision made by a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute arose when Lifeful C&M, acting as a plan manager for an NDIS participant, sought reimbursement for medium-term accommodation (MTA) that had not been an approved support under the participant's NDIS plan. The NDIA had cancelled the claim for payment, and Lifeful C&M wished to have the amount approved as further funding under the participant's plan rather than seeking recovery from the participant.

The AAT was required to determine whether Lifeful C&M had standing under section 27(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to bring the application, specifically whether it was a person whose interests were affected by the decision to approve the participant's statement of participant supports. The Tribunal also considered whether, even if standing were established, it had the power to review the decision given that an internal review under section 100 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth) had not yet been sought, and no decision by a reviewer had been made.

The Tribunal reasoned that Lifeful C&M was not a person whose interests were affected by the decision to approve the participant's statement of supports, and therefore lacked standing under section 27(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*. Consequently, there was no valid application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further noted that even if standing had been established, it would not have had the power to review the decision as the prerequisite internal review process under the NDIS Act had not been completed.

Accordingly, the Tribunal decided that Lifeful C&M did not have standing to bring the application and that there was no valid application before it. The Tribunal also determined that there was no necessity to address Lifeful C&M's request for an extension of time to lodge the application.