XVYL and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by XVYL (the Applicant) for review of a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Respondent) to refuse access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Applicant sought access to the Scheme due to impairments arising from an advanced eating disorder, specifically Anorexia Nervosa, along with other psychosocial and physical conditions. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant met the access criteria stipulated in the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant's impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the activities listed in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act, namely communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, and self-management. Additionally, the court considered whether the Applicant's required supports were for her lifetime and whether these supports were more appropriately funded through general systems of service delivery. The court also examined whether the criteria for early intervention under section 25 of the NDIS Act were established.

Deputy President Mischin P considered extensive evidence, including clinical notes, reports from medical professionals and an occupational therapist, and statements from the Applicant. The Respondent conceded that the Applicant had disabilities attributable to physical impairments and psychiatric conditions, and also conceded the permanence or likely permanence of these disabilities. However, the Respondent contended that while the Applicant experienced some restrictions, these did not amount to a substantially reduced functional capacity for the purposes of section 24(1)(c). The court applied Rule 5.8 of the NDIS Operational Guidelines, which deems a substantially reduced functional capacity if a person is unable to participate effectively or completely without assistive technology, non-commonly used equipment, or home modifications, or if they usually require assistance from others.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that the Applicant's impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake any of the activities specified in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. Furthermore, the court found that the criteria for early intervention under section 25 were not met. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.