Taylor and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Dr Taylor to review a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) on 27 July 2020 concerning her NDIS plan. The NDIA sought to have Dr Taylor's application dismissed under section 42B of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (AAT Act), arguing that the application was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance, or otherwise an abuse of process. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to review the 27 July 2020 decision, given that Dr Taylor had received subsequent NDIS plans which replaced the plan under review.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Dr Taylor's application for review of the 27 July 2020 decision should be dismissed. This involved considering the NDIA's contentions that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over subsequent plans, that the application served no purpose as the plan was no longer in force, and that Dr Taylor was seeking to invoke the Tribunal's power in relation to matters outside the scope of the decision under review. The Tribunal also had to apply the principles outlined in *Re Filsell and Comcare* regarding the cautious exercise of its power to dismiss applications under section 42B of the AAT Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it had jurisdiction to review the 27 July 2020 decision, the subsequent NDIS plans issued in November, December 2020, and January 2021, had replaced the plan that was the subject of the review. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the decision of 27 July 2020, which was in force until 27 November 2020. Despite Dr Taylor's arguments that the review was necessary to understand the NDIA's decision-making process and to prevent a dangerous precedent of avoiding accountability, the Tribunal found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success in providing her with any greater benefit than the decision already made. The Tribunal noted that the subsequent plans, which were not before it, had already addressed the issues of funding and supports.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Taylor's application should be dismissed pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the AAT Act. The Tribunal concluded that it would be futile for the proceedings to continue, and inappropriate to expend the Tribunal's time and resources, or to put the NDIA to further expense, when the application could not provide Dr Taylor with a more beneficial outcome than that already achieved through subsequent plan replacements.