Key takeaways
This decision carries several important implications for NDIS participants, providers and the NDIA:
- Holistic assessment of needs: the NDIA must take a practical, holistic approach when assessing funding requests. Participants with multiple impairments should not be denied funding simply because their need arises from a combination of factors, provided at least one eligible impairment contributes to the need.
- Contributory cause is sufficient: the phrase ‘arising from’ in section 34(1)(aa) requires a causal connection between the need for a support and the participant's impairment, but the eligible impairment need not be the ‘sole cause’ of the need – it is sufficient if it is a ‘contributory cause’.
- NDIS Rules describe attributes, not causation: the descriptions of supports in the NDIS Rules refer to the attributes of the equipment (in other words its design and effect), not a causal link between the qualifying impairment and the need for the equipment.
- Harmonious reading of the NDIS Rules: a support that is expressly identified as a funded NDIS support cannot be disallowed under a general category of excluded items, as doing so would undermine the express inclusion of the support and create a contradiction within the rules.
Decision date: 25 February 2026
The Federal Court of Australia (the Court) has dismissed an appeal by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) seeking to overturn a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) concerning the funding of a mobility scooter for an NDIS participant. The decision provides important guidance on how NDIS supports are to be assessed following the 2024 legislative amendments introduced by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth).
Mr Eastham became a participant in the NDIS in August 2021, having been granted access on the basis of impairments to his hearing and vision. He also lives with other physical impairments which seriously affect his mobility, but these were not the basis upon which he was granted access to the NDIS (referred to as "non-qualifying" impairments). Mr Eastham resides in rural Victoria, where local public transport services can be limited especially in the evenings and on weekends and public holidays. He cannot obtain a driver's licence due to his vision impairment, and his other physical impairments make walking into town or to public transport difficult.
In 2022, Mr Eastham applied to the NDIA for funding for a mobility scooter so he could travel independently to community activities in his local area. The NDIA refused his application on 10 August 2022, but the Tribunal overturned that decision on 3 March 2025. The NDIA subsequently appealed to the Federal Court.
Under subsection 34(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act), the CEO of the NDIA must be satisfied of certain matters before approving the provision of supports or funding for reasonable and necessary supports in a participant's plan. Relevantly:
- Section 34(1)(aa) requires the CEO to be satisfied that a support is "necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements" in section 24.
- Note (b) to section 34(1) acknowledges that, for the purposes of paragraph (aa) a participant's disability support needs arising from a qualifying impairment may be "affected by a variety of factors", including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment which does not meet the disability requirements (in s 24 of the NDIS Act) or the early intervention requirements (in s 25 of the NDIS Act).
- Section 34(1)(f) requires the CEO to be satisfied that the support is a "NDIS support" (as defined) for the participant.
Under the relevant NDIS Rules, personal mobility equipment (including wheelchairs and motorised mobility devices) are declared “NDIS supports”. However, day-to-day living costs for travel and transport (including personal mobility devices such as e-scooters, electric bikes and skateboards) are supports that are generally not NDIS supports.
On appeal, the NDIA advanced three grounds:
- Mr Eastham did not satisfy section 34(1)(aa) because his need for a mobility scooter did not arise from his qualifying vision impairment but from his other non-qualifying physical and sensory impairments.
- The Tribunal erred in concluding that the mobility scooter was an "NDIS support" because the evidence established it was not a "motorised mobility device" but rather a "personal mobility device".
- The Tribunal erred by failing to carry out its review function to determine whether the mobility scooter was a declared "NDIS support" or a "personal mobility device" and therefore excluded.
Justice Hespe dismissed all three grounds of appeal.
The ‘arising from’ requirement (Ground 1)
The Court held that section 34(1)(aa) is concerned with supports that address a need arising from a participant's impairment, rather than supports that address a disability more broadly. The term "arising from" refers to the requisite causal connection between the need for the support and the participant's impairment.
Her Honour cautioned against being overly prescriptive about how that causal connection is to be determined, recognising that "logic and commonsense must play a part" and that the "but for" test of causation may be a useful starting point, but "its application must be tempered by logic and commonsense".
Critically, the Court held that the eligible impairment does not need to be the sole cause of a participant's need for a support; it is sufficient if the impairment is a contributory cause. Her Honour stated that "[a] support will satisfy s 34(1)(aa) if it addresses a need that is causally related to a s 24 impairment notwithstanding that that need is also a product of another impairment…or another factor".
On the facts, the Court found that "but for" his vision impairment, Mr Eastham would not need a mobility scooter because he would have been able to drive himself to town. The Tribunal had correctly found that Mr Eastham's need for the support arose from his vision impairment because that impairment precluded him from driving a car. Her Honour was satisfied that the Tribunal's reasoning was supported by an “evidentiary foundation” and was not "illogical or otherwise legally unreasonable".
Whether a mobility scooter is an ‘NDIS support’ (Grounds 2 and 3)
The NDIA argued that the provision of "personal mobility equipment" only applied where the equipment supported or replaced a participant's capacity to move, and that "capacity" must refer to a capacity diminished by a qualifying impairment. Since Mr Eastham's vision impairment did not reduce his mobility, the NDIA submitted that the mobility scooter fell outside the scope of allowable supports.
The Court rejected this argument, finding that the description in the relevant NDIS Rules referred to the attributes of the equipment – that is, its design and effect – rather than imposing a causal link between the qualifying impairment and the need for the equipment. The causal nexus between a participant's impairment and their need for a support is addressed separately by section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act and the NDIS Rules do not impose a further causal requirement on top of that provision.
The Court also rejected the NDIA's alternative argument that the mobility scooter was excluded as a "personal mobility device", noting that the examples of excluded devices (such as e-scooters, electric bikes and skateboards) are fundamentally different from motorised mobility devices designed for people with disabilities. Her Honour emphasised that the NDIS Rules must be read harmoniously, and since they expressly include "motorised mobility devices" as a type of funded support, it would be contradictory to treat them as an excluded device.
This case note is intended as a general overview only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact us if you wish to discuss how this decision may affect your circumstances.