Eastham (2026) Federal Court Decision: NDIS Assistive Technology Claims Explained

A Federal Court judgment delivered in February 2026 clarified an issue that sits behind many NDIS Assistive Technology refusals: the NDIA cannot require an accepted impairment to be the sole or dominant cause of a support need. After Eastham, the accepted impairment only needs to be a genuine contributory cause of the need the AT addresses. This article explains what the Court held, what it does not change, and what evidence participants, allied health practitioners and Support Coordinators should include in an AT justification.

Published 6 March 2026 • NDIS Assistive Technology • Evidence & Reviews

Primary source: Federal Court judgment (AustLII)
NDIA guidance: Assistive Technology explained (NDIS) · Reasonable and necessary supports (NDIS)

Case summary: what happened

Mr Eastham is 59 years old and lives in Castlemaine, rural Victoria. He gained access to the NDIS on the basis of a vision and hearing impairment. He also has separate physical conditions affecting his lower back, legs and hips — including blood clots in his legs — that make walking difficult.

Due to his vision impairment, Mr Eastham cannot hold a driver’s licence or drive. The local bus service does not run evenings, weekends or public holidays, and his pain medication does not take effect until 10:30am. He applied for NDIS funding for a $7,333.80 motorised mobility scooter to travel to and from town for daily activities and medical appointments.

The NDIA refused. Their position: Mr Eastham’s mobility-related needs arose from his physical conditions — not from his vision impairment, which was his qualifying NDIS impairment. Since the need didn’t arise from that impairment, s 34(1)(aa) wasn’t satisfied.

The Administrative Review Tribunal disagreed and directed that the scooter be funded. The NDIA appealed. On 25 February 2026, Justice Hespe dismissed the appeal.

What the Court clarified

GROUND 1 — CAUSATION TEST FOR NDIS AT claims (s 34(1)(aa)

Section 34(1)(aa) requires that a support be “necessary to address needs of the participant arising from” an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (a “section 24 impairment”). The NDIA argued the s 24 impairment had to be the sole or most proximate cause. The court rejected this.

COURT HELD — CONTRIBUTORY CAUSE IS SUFFICIENT (PARA 83)

Justice Hespe confirmed that s 34(1)(aa) does not require the s 24 impairment to be the sole cause of a support need. It is sufficient that the s 24 impairment be a contributory cause.

The court noted that Note (b) to s 34(1)(aa) expressly recognises that a need arising from a s 24 impairment “may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment” — including impairments that do not themselves satisfy s 24. A need for a support “will invariably be the product of a confluence of factors” (para 83).

The court acknowledged that a “but for” analysis may be a useful starting point for understanding the causal connection, but emphasised this must be “tempered by logic and commonsense” (para 81) — it is not a rigid test. The operative standard is contributory causation.

COURT HELD — APPLIED TO MR EASTHAM’S FACTS (PARA 88)

On the facts: Mr Eastham’s vision impairment prevented him from holding a driver’s licence. But for the vision impairment, he would have been able to drive himself to town. That causal connection was sufficient. The fact that his physical conditions also contributed to why the local bus was not a viable alternative did not fracture that connection.

The court also rejected the Agency’s argument that the causal nexus was broken by the Victorian road safety legislation (para 92). Section 34(1)(aa) does not require the s 24 impairment to be the sole cause.

The court also confirmed that the s 24 impairment does not need to result in a physical mobility impairment for a mobility-related support to qualify. The support must address a need arising from the s 24 impairment — it need not address the impairment itself (para 94).

What the court held — Schedule classification

GROUNDS 2 AND 3 — WAS THE SCOOTER AN NDIS SUPPORT?

The NDIA argued the scooter was either not a “motorised mobility device” within item 28 of Schedule 1, or was excluded by item 6 of Schedule 2, on the basis that it was being used for transport — not to address a mobility impairment qualifying under s 24.

COURT HELD — SCHEDULE ITEMS DESCRIBED BY INHERENT CHARACTER (PARAS 106–115)

Justice Hespe confirmed that the items in the Schedules are described “by the inherent character of the item rather than how the item is to be used by a particular participant” (para 112).

The mobility scooter fell within item 28 of Schedule 1 as a motorised mobility device — equipment designed to support or replace a participant’s capacity to move. The Agency’s argument that item 28 required a mobility impairment under s 24(1)(c)(iv) was rejected: the Schedule does not impose an additional causal nexus beyond s 34(1)(aa) itself (paras 107–108).

Item 6(b) refers to “standard bikes and scooters” — an unmotorised push scooter. Item 6(f) refers to “e-scooters, electric bikes and skateboards” — items of different character. A harmony reading is required: Schedule 1 explicitly recognises motorised mobility devices; Schedule 2 cannot be read to exclude them (paras 113–115).

Column 1 headings (labelled “Category”) are not operative. Section 5 of the 2024 Transitional Rules does not refer to column 1. It was described in the Explanatory Statement as provided “for ease of reference” only. Column 1 does not qualify column 2 (para 114).

What this decision does not change

• Genuine causal contribution required:
  • Contributory causation is a real standard, not a formality. The s 24 impairment must genuinely contribute to the need. A thin or tokenistic connection will not carry the analysis. Each case remains a facts-based assessment.
• NDIA guidelines unchanged:
  • The Agency has not updated its published guidelines. Delegates at first-instance level may not immediately change approach until operational materials catch up. This authority is particularly relevant when responding to refusals and in review proceedings.
• Single-judge decision:
  • This is a significant Federal Court authority on the interpretation of s 34(1)(aa) under the current transitional framework — but it is a decision of a single judge. The NDIA retains the right to seek leave to appeal to a Full Federal Court bench. Treat it as strong — but not fully settled — authority.
• Transitional rules framework:
  • The decision applies the 2024 transitional framework. If that framework is replaced by permanent rules, the wording of the test may change. We will update this series as the regulatory landscape develops.

Evidence checklist for AT claims

The practical shift from Eastham is a reframing of the central documentation question. It is no longer: “Does this impairment solely cause this need?” It is: “Does this impairment genuinely contribute to this need — and can we demonstrate that connection?”

1. The functional problem. What can the participant not do reliably or safely without this support? Be specific and functional — not diagnostic.
2. The contributory cause. How does the participant’s accepted NDIS impairment (their s 24 impairment) contribute to that need? It need not be the only cause — but it must be a genuine one. Make the connection explicit and traceable.
3. The full picture. What other conditions or circumstances also contribute? Don’t omit them — describe how they interact with, rather than replace, the s 24 impairment-based need. Note (b) is your authority for including this context.
4. Why this item. What disability-specific function does this AT serve for this participant? If it resembles a mainstream product, explain what makes it the right tool for this person’s specific functional need and how its inherent design character addresses that need.
5. Why alternatives fall short. What existing supports, services or equipment are available? Why are they inadequate for this participant’s circumstances?

For support coordinators and allied health practitioners: Structuring supporting evidence and AT quotes around these five questions strengthens claims at every stage — first instance, review, and Tribunal. The contributory causation standard rewards documentation that shows the full picture honestly and specifically.

FAQs

Does Eastham mean any AT claim where the s 24 impairment is mentioned will succeed?

No. The decision clarifies the standard. That is, that contributory causation rather than sole or dominant causation, but the causal connection must still be genuine. Delegates and the Tribunal assess each case on its facts. Weak or poorly documented claims will still fail. What the decision removes is the NDIA’s ability to rely on the existence of a second contributing factor to defeat an otherwise well-grounded claim.

Does this apply to low-cost AT, not just expensive items like mobility scooters?

The court’s ruling on s 34(1)(aa) — the contributory causation standard — is not limited to high-value items. It is a general interpretation of the statutory test that applies to any support claim under that provision.

My AT looks like something anyone could buy. Does Eastham help?

Potentially, but with an important nuance. The court confirmed that items are characterised by their inherent design character, not by participant-specific use. However, for items facing objection under the “everyday items” or “general living costs” exclusions (rather than items 6(b) and 6(f) addressed in Eastham), different provisions apply. The documentation approach remains the same: demonstrate the item’s specific functional purpose for this participant.

Will this decision change what the NDIA does at first review stage?

Not immediately. The NDIA has not updated its operational guidance. Delegates may continue applying the old approach until guidelines are updated. The decision’s practical value is greatest in review and Tribunal proceedings — which is why building strong documentation from the outset matters.

What is the difference between the Transitional Rules and the permanent rules?

The 2024 Transitional Rules are temporary instruments enacted to manage the transition to the new planning framework. They will be replaced by permanent rules. Justice Hespe’s decision interprets the test under these transitional rules. If the permanent rules are worded differently, the analysis may change.

Can the NDIS fund AT for a condition that wasn’t my access disability?

Yes — the key question is whether the AT is related to your disability support needs and meets the reasonable and necessary criteria, not whether it matches the single impairment that originally supported access.

In practice, the NDIA (and the Tribunal/Court in Eastham-related reporting) focus on whether there is a real link between your impairment(s) and the functional need the AT addresses. 

What evidence proves “contributory cause”?

Evidence “proves” contributory cause when it clearly shows how your impairment contributes to the functional problem the AT solves, even if other factors also contribute.

The strongest evidence package usually includes:

• Functional evidence describing what you can’t do safely/reliably without the item (OT/physio report, FCA extracts, clinical notes).

• A clear “link statement”: impairment → functional impact → why this AT addresses it.

• Real-world context (your environment and routines), because reasonable and necessary decisions are made against your actual disability support needs, not a hypothetical situation.

(Eastham-related public reporting highlights the combined impacts and practical barriers being central to the reasoning.)

Does Eastham apply to low-cost AT under $1,500?

Eastham is a legal decision about how the disability-link test is applied; the “under $1,500” threshold is an NDIA process category, not a different legal test.

NDIA guidance says:

• Low cost AT is under $1,500 per item.

• For low cost AT, you can generally tell the NDIA what you need without specific written evidence, though some low-cost items that are high risk may need written evidence from an AT advisor.

So: Eastham-type reasoning (disability link based on functional need) is relevant, but low-cost AT often requires less paperwork unless risk is higher.

What if the NDIA says it’s “transport” or a “general living cost”?

That’s a common refusal framing. Your job is to bring it back to the NDIA’s published test:

1. Is it related to your disability support needs?

2. Is it an everyday living cost not related to disability needs (e.g., groceries, rent, utilities)? If yes, it’s usually excluded.

3. Is it actually AT/equipment that helps you function or participate, rather than paying for ordinary transport costs?

If the NDIA labels it “transport”, respond by clarifying the character of the item:

• “This is assistive equipment to address a functional limitation and enable access, not a request to fund everyday travel costs.” (Then show the functional evidence and why alternatives aren’t workable.)

Do environmental factors like distance to public transport matter?

Yes — environment and access realities can matter because decisions must reflect your actual situation and disability support needs, not a generic assumption that “transport exists.”

Public reporting about Eastham emphasises practical barriers (including access) in the reasoning pathway.

Do I need an OT letter for low-cost AT?

Not always.

NDIA guidance says for low cost AT (<$1,500) you can generally tell them what you need without specific written evidence, but some low-cost items that may be high risk can require written evidence from an AT advisor.

A practical rule for LowCost AT: if the item is higher risk, specialised, or likely to be challenged, an OT/AT advisor note is usually a smart defensive move — but it’s not universally mandatory for all low-cost items.

What’s the fastest way to strengthen my AT justification?

Fastest = tighten the logic chain so an NDIA delegate can say “yes” quickly:

1. One-sentence functional problem (what fails, how often, what risk).

2. One-sentence disability link (impairment contributes to that problem).

3. One-sentence “why this item” (how it solves it, measurable outcome).

4. One-sentence alternatives (what was tried / why not suitable).

5. Cost and value (why it’s reasonable, effective, value for money).

If you only add one thing: add functional evidence + a clean link statement (impairment → need → item).

What do I do if my AT request is refused?

1. Ask for the refusal reasons in writing and identify the exact ground (e.g., “not related to disability”, “day-to-day living cost”, “mainstream responsibility”, “value for money”).

2. Add targeted evidence that addresses that specific ground (don’t re-submit the same pack).

3. Request an internal review with a short, structured submission using the NDIA’s own reasonable and necessary criteria.

4. If still refused, you can consider external merits review pathways (noting the system has changed over time); get advice for your specific circumstances.

This post is general information only and is not legal advice. Specific claims should be assessed by a qualified practitioner with knowledge of your individual circumstances.

This is Part 1 of our NDIS AT Explained series. Next: what the NDIS Schedules of Supports actually say about which AT products are funded — and the items that fall in the grey zone.