27 July – 7 August 2026

A 12-year-old girl with a severe speech delay, specific learning disabilities, anxiety and ADHD. The NDIA accepted she met the age and residence rules but said she failed the disability requirements — the Tribunal disagreed and granted access.

A 64-year-old carer for her adult son sought access based on osteoarthritis of the neck and thumbs and cervical spine degeneration. The Tribunal found the disability requirements were not met and affirmed the refusal.

The Tribunal had granted Mr Paul access, but the Agency referred the decision to the Guidance and Appeals Panel, arguing the "substantially reduced functional capacity" test for social interaction had been misapplied. The Panel agreed, set the decision aside, and found the access criteria were not met.

The applicant relied on psychosocial disability and a neuromusculoskeletal impairment causing pain, fatigue and post-exertional malaise, arguing no available treatment was likely to remedy it. The Tribunal set aside the refusal and granted access.

A 63-year-old applicant relied on major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia and lymphoedema. The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because it could not be satisfied the impairments were permanent while further treatment options remained — a common sticking point in access cases.

The applicant relied on impairments from epilepsy, depression, anxiety and a cardiac condition, arguing she met both the disability and early intervention requirements. The Tribunal affirmed the refusal on both grounds.

A 39-year-old woman with borderline personality disorder, PTSD, fibromyalgia and chronic pain disputed her support-worker hours. The Tribunal set the plan decision aside and specified weekly 1:1 support hours for self-care, domestic assistance and community participation, plus fortnightly Sunday community access and Level 2 transport funding.

A participant with psychosocial and cognitive impairments and diabetes sought 24/7 one-to-one supported independent living. The Tribunal didn't go that far, but substituted six hours per day of support-worker assistance at the high-intensity rate — applying the new transitional rules.

A man in his 30s with intellectual disability and complex PTSD, previously in a secure forensic facility, sought funding for supports tied to justice-system conditions and secure accommodation. The Tribunal held those supports are more appropriately funded by the justice system, not the NDIS — and upheld the plan.

A 53-year-old man with complex regional pain syndrome sought $68,194 in outdoor works — excavation, retaining walls, a concrete slab, turfing and pool fencing — to enable outdoor hobbies. The Tribunal held these weren't "home modifications" (which are about living independently and safely at home) under the transitional rules — a sign of how the October 2024 changes are narrowing what plans can fund.

A 37-year-old man with autism, moderate intellectual disability and a visual impairment sought one-to-one SIL support for all daytime hours in his group home; the Agency said he could share support for part of the day. The Tribunal landed in between: 8 hours per day of 1:1 support, 1:2 support for the rest of the day, and 1:2 inactive overnight support.

A participant with relapsing-remitting MS disputed 28 requested supports spanning support work, employment supports, therapies and home modifications. He won on three: 27 hours per year of exercise physiology, a queen-sized electric bed and mattress (subject to quotes), and $350 a year for bed maintenance.

A self-represented applicant appealed against a Tribunal ruling that let the NDIA inspect his private medical records produced under summons. The Court struck out the appeal (interlocutory decisions can't be appealed that way) but allowed him to reframe it as a judicial review application.

A participant who could no longer live with his father submitted a home-and-living change request backed by an OT report recommending specialist disability accommodation — and the Agency didn't act. The Tribunal held that refusing to act was a reviewable decision "not to conduct a reassessment" under s 48(3) — useful for participants told "no reassessment".

A participant with an acquired brain injury sought a plan variation after moving into single-resident specialist disability accommodation (her plan funded two-resident SDA) and exhausting her speech pathology funds. The Tribunal held its review is limited to the variation question — it can't be widened into a review of the whole statement of supports.

An access applicant — refused because her physical and psychosocial impairments weren't found permanent — objected to the NDIA inspecting her GP clinical records produced under summons, or sought redactions. The Tribunal allowed the Agency to inspect the full records.

Three linked parties challenging banning orders asked to have their proceedings split from each other. The Tribunal dismissed the severance applications — the evidence overlapped too much, and the matters will proceed jointly.

A provider sought a stay of the Commissioner's refusal to renew its registration while it challenged that refusal. The Tribunal instead dismissed the review application entirely as having no reasonable prospects of success.