Background
Discover Nursing Australia Pty Ltd, a registered NDIS provider, challenged the National Disability Insurance Agency’s decisions to place it on the Payments Integrity Review Program—now called manual payment review—and not remove it from that process. Under manual review, the agency assesses individual payment claims and may request supporting information before deciding whether each claim should be paid.
Discover Nursing said the review had seriously affected its cash flow, services, and commercial viability. It sought review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and also invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The agency objected that this part of the application was incompetent because placement on manual review was not a legally reviewable decision. The objection was determined on the papers.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Younan upheld the agency’s objection. Placement on, and continued retention in, manual payment review did not confer, alter, or otherwise affect Discover Nursing’s legal rights or obligations. It was a preliminary, internal step governing how the agency would examine claims, not a substantive determination of whether any particular claim would be paid under s 45 of the NDIS Act.
The Court followed Maysan Holdings Pty Ltd v National Disability Insurance Agency, rejecting Discover Nursing’s contention that it was plainly wrong. Although manual review could deeply affect the provider’s practical interests, practical consequences did not make the placement a decision “under an enactment” for ADJR Act purposes. Nor was certiorari available under s 39B because the placement had no legal effect to quash. The Court dismissed the challenged prayers and related pleading and ordered Discover Nursing to pay the agency’s costs of the competency objection, subject to further submissions.
Key Takeaways
- Putting an NDIS provider into manual payment review is a preliminary administrative step, not a reviewable decision under the ADJR Act.
- Severe commercial or practical effects do not themselves establish that a decision has altered legal rights or obligations.
- Certiorari cannot quash an internal process decision that has no legal effect, although unreasonable delay may raise a separate question about mandamus.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces a distinction between the NDIA’s internal methods for scrutinising claims and its ultimate determinations on individual payment claims. A provider cannot obtain judicial review of manual-review placement merely by showing that the process delayed payments or harmed its business.
The judgment does not foreclose every challenge arising from payment review. A determination on an individual claim may be reviewable, and prolonged inaction may potentially support relief for unreasonable delay. Those issues, however, were separate from the competency question decided here.