Munday and National Disability Insurance Agency  AATA 355 concerned an application for review of a plan, which did not make provision for a motorised wheelchair in the context of the applicant’s hereditary spasticity paraplegias. The issue for the Tribunal was whether the wheelchair was a reasonable and necessary support.
The Tribunal varied the decision under review so as to provide funding for a particular type of motorised wheelchair, with a speed inhibitor. The speed inhibitor was necessary so that the wheelchair could be used on footpaths.
The decision included consideration of the ‘value for money’ criterion in section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act, along with consideration of a support rule such that a support will not be funded if it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others.