McGarrigle and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr McGarrigle, a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) with autism spectrum disorder and an intellectual disability, against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute centred on the extent to which the NDIA should fund Mr McGarrigle's transport costs, specifically the use of taxis. The decision was made by SM J F Toohey.

The court was required to determine whether the NDIA's decision to fund only 75 per cent of Mr McGarrigle's weekday transport costs was consistent with the objects of the NDIS Act and the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports. Specifically, the court had to consider what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks, and the community to provide in terms of transport support, and whether transport is a support that, if only partly funded, would be of little or no benefit.

SM J F Toohey reasoned that while some supports may be rendered ineffective if only partially funded, transport is not such a support. The court found that a policy of meeting a substantial part, rather than the full cost, of transport is not inconsistent with the objects of the NDIS Act. The decision to fund 75 per cent of Mr McGarrigle's weekday transport was considered to strike an appropriate balance, taking into account his individual needs and circumstances, as well as what it is reasonable to expect his family to provide. The court acknowledged the additional burden this would place on his parents but concluded that the funding level recognised this burden and the potential risk to their wellbeing.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the transport was a reasonable and necessary support for Mr McGarrigle and that funding less than the full cost was not inconsistent with the Act.