Sayed v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 5) [2024] FCA 923

Sayed v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 5) [2024] FCA 923

The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review Mr Sayed's application because there was no decision made under s 100(6) of the NDIS Act. The events, properly characterised, showed the review conducted by the NDIA was under s 48, not s 100, and thus there was no reviewable decision as required by s 103. Therefore, the Tribunal's conclusion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Appeal / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs ordered against applicant with stay
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdiction' 'national Disability Insurance Scheme' 'tribunal Review' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdiction' 'national Disability Insurance Scheme' 'tribunal Review' 'procedural Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Appeal / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Sayed's application because there was a decision under s 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)" 'Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding there was no reviewable decision under s 100(6)' 'Whether any denial of procedural fairness would alter the outcome']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review Mr Sayed's application because there was no decision made under s 100(6) of the NDIS Act. The events, properly characterised, showed the review conducted by the NDIA was under s 48, not s 100, and thus there was no reviewable decision as required by s 103. Therefore, the Tribunal's conclusion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was correct.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs ordered against applicant with stay

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed.' "The Applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding." 'Order 2 be stayed until the later of: (a) the end of the period in which an appeal against these orders may be filed; and (b) if an appeal against these orders is filed by the applicant, the date of determination of...