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 need s 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: Is it related to your disability support needs? Is it an everyday living cost not related to disability needs (e.g., groceries, rent, utilities)? If yes, it’s usually excluded. 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: One-sentence functional problem (what fails, how often, what risk). One-sentence disability link (impairment contributes to that problem). One-sentence “why this item” (how it solves it, measurable outcome). One-sentence alternatives (what was tried / why not suitable). 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?

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”). Add targeted evidence that addresses that specific ground (don’t re-submit the same pack). Request an internal review with a short, structured submission using the NDIA’s own reasonable and necessary criteria. If still refused, you can consider external merits review pathways (noting the system has changed over time); get advice for your specific circumstances.