WCWP and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by WCWP (the Applicant) to review a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Respondent). The Respondent's decision affirmed an earlier decision that weekly psychology support and meal preparation and delivery services were not reasonable and necessary supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act 2013. The Applicant sought review of this decision, contending that the psychology support was necessary to reduce hospital admissions and that their physical impairments made food preparation difficult.

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether it should exercise its discretion under section 42A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to dismiss the Applicant's application for review. This discretion could be enlivened if the Applicant failed to proceed with the application or comply with Tribunal directions within a reasonable time. The Tribunal also considered its overarching objectives, as set out in section 2A of the AAT Act, which include providing a mechanism for review that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal, and quick.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously been given notice of directions hearings and alternative dispute resolution events. However, the Tribunal had previously refused a request by the Respondent to dismiss the application under section 42A(2) because the Applicant had provided advance notice of their inability to participate in these events, citing reasons related to their impairments. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Applicant's impairments, stemming from physical and mental health conditions, affected their capacity to participate. Despite the Applicant's volatile communication style, the Tribunal considered that dismissing the application under section 42A(2) would not be fair or reasonable in these circumstances.

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application under section 42A(5) of the AAT Act. This was because the Applicant had failed to proceed with the application or comply with Tribunal directions within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's circumstances, including the need for a police welfare check due to distress, and the ongoing difficulties in progressing the matter, meant that the application could not be pursued in a manner consistent with the Tribunal's objectives.