1 – 26 July 2026

Ten cases ended without the Tribunal ever weighing the evidence — dismissed for missed directions, missed hearings, or refused extensions of time (one application was 346 days late). If you’re running a review, meeting deadlines and responding to the Tribunal’s directions matters as much as the strength of your case.

In Flintoff, 211 hours of exercise physiology was refused because the supporting research involved small, older studies of a different condition. The Tribunal preferred the independent expert over the treating therapist. Requests for intensive therapy need current, disability-specific evidence that the program is effective and beneficial — enthusiasm from the treating team isn’t enough.

Albanese’s request for private patient stretcher transport was summarily dismissed — not weighed and rejected, but thrown out as having no reasonable prospects — because it wasn’t an “NDIS support” under the 2024 changes. YHJH shows the same framework applied line-by-line to paediatric therapies. Whether a request sits inside the Transitional Rules is now the first question, not the last.

Warner’s respite was halved from 56 to 28 days a year, and Aleksevic’s only win was a change in how the plan is managed — not how much is in it. A Tribunal review looks at the plan afresh, which cuts both ways.

LNPV secured 24/7 one-to-one supported independent living. BDYD won 760 hours a year of self-care support. Clear got his deaf-alert technology funded in full. Where the evidence lines up with the statutory tests, the Tribunal is still prepared to direct substantial packages — the bar is higher, not closed.

Mr Weldon was found not to meet the disability requirements to become a participant. The Tribunal affirmed the Agency’s refusal, so he remains outside the Scheme.

The applicant relied on psychosocial, cognitive, physical and sensory impairments. The Tribunal wasn’t satisfied they were shown to be permanent and attributable as the access criteria require, and affirmed the refusal.

Decided on the papers. The applicant claimed physical impairments, but the Tribunal found the substantially-reduced-functional-capacity and early intervention requirements weren’t met.

A child under six had entered the Scheme under the early intervention pathway, and the Agency later revoked access. The Tribunal affirmed the revocation — a reminder that early-intervention access can be re-tested as a child grows.

An access dispute that never reached the merits. After repeated non-compliance with directions, missed assessment appointments and a missed directions hearing across a case running since 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant lodged an access review application 346 days late and asked for an extension of time. The Tribunal refused, so the access dispute was never considered.

A 27-year-old woman with spina bifida sought around 211 hours a year of intensive exercise physiology (FES bike, body-weight-support treadmill, strength training) after her funding was cut to 50 hours. The Tribunal preferred the independent physiotherapist’s evidence and found the research relied on didn’t show the program was effective and beneficial for her disability — the funding stayed cut.

Mr Clear, who is deaf, sought assistive technology including a Tiny Red Box deaf alert system and a video doorbell. The Tribunal set the decision aside and directed the Agency to fund the equipment.

A specialist disability accommodation (SDA) dispute where the applicant argued the Tribunal constitutionally couldn’t apply certain provisions and sought referral to the Federal Court. The Tribunal rejected the jurisdictional challenge and affirmed the decision.

A paediatric supports dispute working through the new Transitional Rules — whether requested therapies fall in Schedule 1 or 2, duplication, and value for money. The Tribunal varied the plan to add 36 hours of occupational therapy (vision, orientation and mobility) plus travel and report-writing time, and lifted therapy-assistant physio from 20 to 29 hours.

The decision under review was affirmed, but the parties agreed separately that the Agency would add blockout curtains to the plan — the Tribunal noted the agreement without deciding the point.

The applicant sought funding for private patient stretcher transport. A Deputy President summarily dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospects of success — the transport wasn’t an “NDIS support” under the new definition and Transitional Rules.

Three successive plans were in dispute for a man represented by his guardian. The Tribunal affirmed the newest plan but set aside the two earlier ones, directing 24/7 one-to-one supported independent living with inactive overnight support and 2:1 community participation supports.

The Tribunal set aside Mr Outten’s plan decision and remitted it, directing that specific supports be treated as reasonable and necessary and funded at the rates in the NDIS Pricing Arrangements.

A parent challenged several plan decisions for her child. The Tribunal dismissed the challenges to two older decisions as lacking in substance, but varied the current plan to fund additional supports it found reasonable and necessary.

A long chain of varied plan decisions ended with the Tribunal setting the decision aside and directing the Agency to include 760 hours a year of one-to-one support worker assistance for self-care.

A short term accommodation (respite) dispute. The Tribunal replaced the existing 56 days a year with 28 days — 14 at the Saturday rate and 14 at the Sunday rate — showing the Tribunal can move funding down as well as up.

Funding had been reduced from the previous plan, with consumables and respite in dispute. The Tribunal’s only change was to switch the plan from agency-managed to plan-managed — the funding levels themselves stayed put.

A registered provider sought an extension of time to challenge a Quality and Safeguards Commission decision from December 2025. The Tribunal refused, ending the review before it began.

A provider’s challenge to a Commission decision was dismissed for failure to comply with directions and progress the case — the merits were never reached.

Dismissed for failure to proceed with the application and comply with directions.

A challenge to a plan decision was summarily dismissed as lacking in substance, without a full merits hearing.

Dismissed for failure to comply with directions or progress the review.

Dismissed on the same ground — failure to proceed with the application.

An extension of time to seek review was refused, so the underlying dispute was never considered.