Background
The Court had previously found that Lynette Peters contravened s 73ZN(10) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) by breaching an NDIS banning order. The order, made on 10 December 2024 and effective from 1 January 2025 for two years, prohibited her from specified NDIS activities.
The banning order followed Ms Peters’ August 2024 convictions on seven counts of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception through fraudulent NDIS claims totalling $25,962.04. Soon after the order commenced, she arranged and provided support-coordination services to two vulnerable NDIS participants. She used another person’s name for service agreements and invoices; payments for one participant were made into that person’s account and transferred to Ms Peters.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Shariff imposed a single civil penalty of $180,000 and ordered Ms Peters to pay the Commissioner’s costs as agreed or taxed. Although there were two contraventions, concerning two participants, the Court treated them as a series of similar contraventions and imposed one penalty. The combined statutory maximum was $660,000.
The Court held that the conduct was knowing, deliberate, calculated and for personal gain. It began within weeks of the banning order taking effect, continued over months, involved efforts to conceal the breaches, and ceased only after Commission investigators encountered Ms Peters at one participant’s home. General and specific deterrence, the protection of vulnerable participants, and the integrity of NDIS funding warranted a substantial penalty. Ms Peters’ unsupported claims of financial hardship were given limited weight.
The Court refused the Commissioner’s requests for a declaration and injunction. Its earlier liability reasons and the penalty judgment already recorded the contraventions and the Court’s disapproval, leaving no practical utility in a declaration. An injunction was also unnecessary because there was no evidence of further breaches after March 2025 and the banning order was due to expire within months.
Key Takeaways
- Breaching an NDIS banning order can attract substantial civil penalties, even where the contravener says they cannot pay.
- Concealment, financial gain, prior NDIS fraud convictions, and conduct involving vulnerable participants were serious aggravating factors.
- Declarations and injunctions remain discretionary: a civil penalty judgment may make further relief unnecessary.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that banning orders are a central NDIS safeguard, designed to prevent people found unsuitable from continuing to provide services to participants. The Court treated deliberate circumvention of such an order as conduct that threatens both vulnerable people and public confidence in the scheme.
For regulators and providers, the case also illustrates that deterrence—not punishment for its own sake—drives civil-penalty assessment, while supplementary relief will be granted only where it serves a real practical regulatory purpose.