Sayed v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 5)

The case of Sayed v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 5) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr Sayed, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had dismissed his application for review of a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Mr Sayed challenged the NDIA's decision to approve a statement of participant supports in his National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan, contending that the AAT had no jurisdiction to review the decision because it was not a reviewable decision within the meaning of section 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).

The key legal issues were whether the NDIA had made a reviewable decision under section 100(6) of the NDIS Act, and if the AAT had jurisdiction to review that decision. The court had to determine whether the decision to approve the statement of participant supports constituted a decision that could be reviewed under section 100 of the NDIS Act, and if so, whether this decision was subject to review by the AAT.

The court found that the decision to approve the statement of participant supports in Mr Sayed’s plan was indeed a reviewable decision under section 100(6) of the NDIS Act, as it was a decision that could be reviewed by the affected person. However, the court also concluded that the AAT had dismissed the application for review for the correct reason, which was that the AAT lacked jurisdiction to review the decision because it did not fall within the scope of section 103 of the NDIS Act. The court held that the AAT's conclusion was correct, and there was no error in the AAT’s decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the proceeding were awarded to the NDIA.

In summary, the Federal Court upheld the AAT's dismissal of Mr Sayed's application for review, affirming that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to review the NDIA’s decision to approve the statement of participant supports in his NDIS plan. The court's decision was final, with an order for Mr Sayed to pay the NDIA’s costs, subject to any potential appeal.