Brown and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)
[2025] ARTA 2029
“… consideration must be given to the nature of the requested support and whether it has additional or novel features that ‘modify’ or ‘adapt’ it from the norm, in a way which is relevant to the participant’s impairments.”
What the record established
Ms Brown has severe ME/CFS and has been an NDIS participant since 2018. She rarely leaves the house [10]. She asked for two things: motorised blackout blinds for her bedroom, quoted at $3,880, and pull-out kitchen drawers rated to 65 kg, quoted at $1,980 [4]. The NDIA said both were ordinary household fittings, not NDIS supports, and not value for money [6].
Each item was tied to a named feature of her condition. The blinds were for light sensitivity, a sleep pattern that hadn't shifted despite years of treatment, and rest during a crash after exertion; she couldn't pull her existing drawstring curtains [63]–[64]. The drawers were for orthostatic intolerance: bending forward into a cupboard risks fainting, and a 65 kg rating takes her weight if she leans on one [67]–[68].
The record behind that was specific. Her GP's letter listed the sleep treatments tried and said none had shifted the pattern, which he called “a fixed feature of her permanent disability” [66]. Her occupational therapist assessed the kitchen in person, photographed it, and showed the body position needed with and without a pull-out drawer [78]. Cheaper options, from velcro curtains to external shutters and eye masks, were set out and ruled out [76].
What carried it
The NDIA's main argument was that blinds and drawers are standard items, excluded by the 2024 rules. The Tribunal disagreed. What matters is whether the item has features that depart from the norm in a way that addresses the person's impairments; those features don't have to be made only for her [52], [55]. Blackout fabric fitted by the manufacturer, a motor, and a 65 kg rating all qualified [58].
Value for money was shown, not asserted. The blinds cost less than paying a support worker to open and close curtains, and the drawers reduce her reliance on support workers to prepare food [76], [79]. The NICE guideline's advice for severe ME/CFS, a dark, low-stimulus room and aids for independence, carried the good-practice test [82], [85].
The win didn't rest on advocacy. The Tribunal found her occupational therapist's evidence suggested a lack of impartiality [33], and it generally preferred the NDIA's medical expert [29]. Her case held because she was a credible witness [21] and the facts were documented independently of anyone's opinion [34], [37].
The Tribunal called them “manifestly reasonable and necessary supports” [93].
Brownat [55]
Those added features need not be crafted exclusively for those impairments.
Why a fitting with the right features isn't a “standard item”, even if people without a disability buy similar ones.
Brownat [25]
fairness did not require that Dr Claridge’s opinion be rejected because he was not available to speak to his written opinions
She couldn't afford her GP's attendance at the hearing. His written opinion was still weighed.
Brownat [76]
penalised in terms of her available NDIS supports because of that impaired body clock
What the Tribunal refused to do, once the treatment record showed the sleep pattern couldn't be changed.
Read the decision
Brown and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2029
Published in full on AustLII, and citable by that reference.
Read with Butler [2025] ARTA 1579. The same city and the same advocacy service six weeks earlier: a request that lost every item it asked for.
These are published Tribunal decisions, not my clients. They're summarised to show what the records in each matter did and didn't establish. Nothing here is a prediction about any other matter, and no outcome is implied. Every decision turns on its own evidence.