Federal Court of Australia

Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission v Peters [2026] FCA 537

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The matter be listed for case management at 9.45 am on Wednesday, 13 May 2026.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SHARIFF J:

1.    INTRODUCTION

1    The applicant, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner (the Commissioner), seeks a determination and declaration that the respondent (Ms Peters) contravened s 73ZN(10) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act). This is the only issue to be decided at the present time. If it is found that Ms Peters contravened s 73ZN(10) of the NDIS Act, the Commissioner seeks that the matter be listed for further hearing as to the appropriate relief that should follow.

2    Ms Peters was formerly engaged as a “coordinator of supports” (COS) in relation to the provision of activities and services to persons known as “NDIS Participants”. A COS assists an NDIS Participant to navigate the NDIS system, understand their NDIS plan, connect with service providers and manage supports.

3    Ms Peters was convicted on 30 August 2024 of seven counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The relevant conduct concerned fraudulently claiming amounts totalling $25,962.04 from the NDIS plans of two NDIS Participants for services that she did not deliver. Following that conviction, on 10 December 2024, a banning order was issued to Ms Peters by a delegate of the Commissioner pursuant to s 73ZN(2)(b) of the NDIS Act (the Banning Order).

4    The Banning Order took effect from 5pm on 1 January 2025 for a period of 2 years and the relevant terms were as follows:

I make the order prohibiting Lynette Peters from being engaged in the following NDIS activities: Any activities that relates to the direct provision of NDIS funded supports and services to NDIS Participants, including Support Coordination and Plan Management.

5    The Commissioner contends that between January and March 2025, Ms Peters provided support and services to two NDIS Participants, Mr Todd Hugill and Mrs Christine Hardes, both directly and indirectly, in breach of the Banning Order in contravention of s 73ZN(10) of the NDIS Act.

6    Ms Peters has denied the claims but did not file a Response to the Commissioner’s Concise Statement. Nor did she file any evidence.

7    For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms Peters breached the Banning Order in contravention of s 73ZN(10) of the NDIS Act.

2.    THE STATUTORY SCHEME

8    Section 73ZN of the NDIS Act relevantly provides as follows:

73ZN Banning orders

…

Banning orders—persons employed or otherwise engaged by NDIS providers or key personnel of NDIS providers

(2)     The Commissioner may, by written notice, make an order (a banning order) prohibiting or restricting a person who is or was employed or otherwise engaged by an NDIS provider, or a person who is or was a member of the key personnel of an NDIS provider, from engaging in specified activities if:

…

(b)     the person is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty; or

…

Civil penalty

(10)     A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a)     the person engages in conduct; and

(b)     the conduct breaches a banning order (including a condition of the order) that has been made against the person.

Civil Penalty:    1,000 penalty units.

9    Section 73ZN(10) is a civil penalty provision. By s 73ZK, the civil penalty provisions of Part 3A of the NDIS Act are enforceable under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) (Regulatory Powers Act).

10    By s 73ZQ, the provisions of Part 3A of the NDIS Act are enforceable by an injunction under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

11    By s 121(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act, where a person has engaged in a contravention of a provision enforceable under Part 7, the Court may grant an injunction restraining the person from engaging in the conduct.

3.    CONSIDERATION

12    The issues that presently arise for determination are whether:

(a)    a banning order had been made against Ms Peters; and

(b)    Ms Peters breached the banning order.

13    I address each issue in turn.

3.1    The Banning Order

14    Following her conviction for the offences referred to above, Ms Peters was informed that consideration was being given to the imposition of a banning order under s 73ZN(2)(b) of the NDIS Act. Ms Peters was invited to make, and did make, submissions concerning the proposed banning order on 4 November 2024.

15    The Banning Order was issued to Ms Peters on 10 December 2024. In the letter sent to Ms Peters, the Commissioner’s delegate stated that:

I have decided to make a banning order against you, Lynette Peters under section 73ZN(2)(b) of the NDIS Act, prohibiting you from being involved in the provision of NDIS supports and services to people with disability, with effect from 1 January 2025 for a period of 2 years. A copy of the Banning Order is enclosed.

(Original emphasis.)

16    The text of the Banning Order is partially set out above at [4]. Counsel for the Commissioner drew my attention to the fact that the title to the Banning Order is as follows:

BANNING ORDER

Section 73ZN (2)(c) National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cath)

17    The reference to s 73ZN(2)(c) is a typographical error; the reference should be to s 73ZN(2)(b). That this is a typographical error is made plain by the letter from the Commissioner’s delegate and the text of the Banning Order itself, both of which plainly indicate that it was being made under s 73ZN(2)(b).

18    In an interview with the Commissioner on 17 April 2025, Ms Peters admitted to receiving and understanding the Banning Order.

19    Ms Peters did not exercise any internal or external merits review rights. She has made no application to vary or revoke the Banning Order.

20    Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Banning Order applied to Ms Peters. She did not dispute this to be the case.

3.2    Whether Ms Peters breached the Banning Order

21    As set out above, the Commissioner advanced its case as to Ms Peters’ breaches of the Banning Order by reference to two NDIS Participants, Mr Hugill and Mrs Hardes. I will consider that case by reference to each of these NDIS Participants in turn. What follows reflects my findings based on the largely unchallenged evidence.

3.2.1    Todd Hugill

22    There was no dispute that Mr Hugill was an NDIS Participant with a number of medical conditions and disabilities, including schizophrenia, autism and substance use issues. His medications included daily methadone. Regrettably, Mr Hugill has recently passed away.

23    Prior to the Banning Order being issued, Ms Peters was Mr Hugill’s COS. Mr Hugill had funding allocated in his NDIS plan for support coordination.

24    Ms Melinda O’Reilly is a behavioural support practitioner who had Mr Hugill as a client.

25    On 16 January 2025, Ms O’Reilly sent an email to Ms Peters asking for her to organise a joint meeting with Mr Hugill to go through his NDIS plan. The email stated as follows:

Hope you had a lovely Christmas break. I've been trying to brain storm next steps for supporting Todd and spoke to Honni on Tuesday as well to discuss best ideas moving forward.

I wonder if perhaps if you and I went to see Todd in early Feb and perhaps use this as an opportunity to discuss his funding and that he needs to current supports for the next x6 months / explain that the team he has on board at the moment knows him well and that it would be best to try and continue working with and work through problems rather than cease services.

26    On 29 January 2025, Ms O’Reilly made arrangements with Ms Peters to meet at Mr Hugill’s house to discuss his wishes for NDIS supports. Ms O’Reilly and Ms Peters went to Mr Hugill’s home on 31 January 2025 for this meeting. However, the meeting did not proceed because Mr Hugill did not answer the door.

27    Ms O’Reilly and Ms Peters rescheduled the meeting with Mr Hugill to the following Thursday, 6 February 2025 at 12.30 pm. The meeting for 6 February 2025 did not proceed and was rescheduled to 12 February 2025.

28    On 12 February 2025, Ms O’Reilly and Ms Peters attended at Mr Hugill’s house. The meeting again did not proceed because Mr Hugill did not answer the knock at his door. A plan was discussed whereby Ms Peters would contact a local pharmacy to inform Mr Hugill that they were attempting to contact him.

29    During a meeting with Ms O’Reilly on 26 February 2025 (at which Ms Peters was not present), Mr Hugill indicated that he wished to cease engaging Ms Peters as his COS. Ms O’Reilly assisted Mr Hugill to call his plan manager (Ms Danae Cayirylys) to make these arrangements.

30    On 14 March 2025, Ms O’Reilly received a phone call from Ms Peters stating that she would remain as Mr Hugill’s COS until his NDIS plan review in April.

31    The fact of communications between Ms Peters and Ms O’Reilly are corroborated by the telephone records for Ms Peters’ mobile phone obtained by the Commissioner. These records show the following:

(a)    on 29 January 2025 at 7.18 am UTC (6.18 pm AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Ms O’Reilly of 18 minutes duration;

(b)    on 30 January 2025 at 22.31 pm UTC (31 January 2025 at 9.31 am AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Ms O’Reilly of 37 seconds duration;

(c)    on 5 February 2025 at 23.49 pm UTC (6 February 2025 at 10.49 am AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Ms O’Reilly of 46 seconds duration;

(d)    on 6 February 2025 at 1.17 am UTC (6 February 2025 at 12.17 pm AEDT), there is a call from Ms O’Reilly to Ms Peters of 4 minutes 39 seconds duration;

(e)    on 25 February 2025 at 22.32 pm UTC (26 February 2025 at 9.32 am AEDT), there is a call from Ms O’Reilly to Ms Peters of 1 minute 52 seconds duration; and

(f)    on 13 March 2025 at 21.48 pm UTC (14 March 2025 at 8.48 am AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Ms O’Reilly of 3 minutes 59 seconds duration.

32    The totality of this evidence establishes that despite the Banning Order taking effect from 1 January 2025, Ms Peters had several communications with Ms O’Reilly concerning the supports to be provided to Mr Hugill, and made arrangements to attend, and did attend, at Mr Hugill’s house for the purpose of carrying out NDIS support coordination, in breach of the Banning Order.

33    During the course of oral submissions, Ms Peters did not deny the conduct alleged against her. In substance, she submitted that the purpose of her conduct was to ensure that Mr Hugill knew that she would no longer be his COS. Ms Peters indicated that she was concerned about Mr Hugill and wished to assist in him transitioning to a new COS.

34    It may be that Ms Peters was well-intentioned in seeking to meet with Mr Hugill, but that is unnecessary to decide at the present time. At this stage, the relevant question is whether Ms Peters was engaged in “activities that relates to the direct provision of NDIS funded supports and services to NDIS Participants, including Support Coordination and Plan Management”. I am satisfied that she was engaged in such activities. As set out above, Ms O’Reilly’s unchallenged evidence is that she sent an email to Ms Peters that invited her to attend a meeting with Mr Hugill to discuss his funding and supports for the next six months, and to explain aspects of his NDIS plan. Ms Peters not only agreed to do so, she then took steps to discuss these matters with Ms O’Reilly and to provide those services to Mr Hugill, though they were not able to be provided in the end result. Nevertheless, by engaging in those activities, including with Ms O’Reilly, Ms Peters was engaged in the provision of support coordination and plan management.

35    It follows that I am satisfied that Ms Peters breached the Banning Order in relation to the services provided or to be provided to Mr Hugill.

3.2.2    Mrs Christine Hardes

36    Mrs Hardes is also an NDIS Participant.

37    Ms Peters had been Mrs Hardes’ COS since 2020. Mrs Hardes had funding allocated in her NDIS plan for support coordination.

38    On 17 March 2025, Mrs Hardes received a phone call from Ms Peters. During this phone call, Ms Peters asked Mrs Hardes about attending at her house to provide support coordination, including assisting her to write invoices for reimbursement of expenses from Mrs Hardes’ NDIS plan. Mrs Hardes’ evidence was as follows:

During this telephone conversation, Lynette asked me when a good time would be to come over and visit me at my home so she could help me out with some support coordination. I recall her asking me if I needed to have any invoices written out. I understood this to mean that anything I had purchased, such as linen, she would assist me to get reimbursed out of my NDIS plan. Annexed and marked CMH-2 is a true copy of that incoming phone call on 17 March 2025. I told Lynette that she should come to my house during the morning of Thursday 20 March 2025. On 18 March 2025, I sent her a message from my mobile phone about coming to my home on Thursday. Annexed and marked CMH-3 is a true copy of that message on 18 March 2025.

39    As will be evident from the above, arrangements were made for Ms Peters to attend at Mrs Hardes’ house on 20 March 2025.

40    Ms Peters did attend at Mrs Hardes’ house on 20 March 2025. On that day, NDIS Commission investigators, Ms Sara Connery and Mr Lachlan Shoobridge, were at Mrs Hardes’ house. When confronted by Ms Connery, Ms Peters denied she was there to provide support coordination services for Mrs Hardes. Rather, she claimed that she was there to help Mrs Hardes find a new COS.

41    The telephone records for Ms Peters’ mobile phone corroborate the fact that she communicated with Mrs Hardes. These records show a call on 16 March 2025 at 22.42 pm UTC (17 March 2025 at 9.42 am AEDT) from Ms Peters to Mrs Hardes of 6 minutes and 55 seconds duration. Further, the telephone records show numerous other phone calls before 17 March 2025, as follows:

(a)    on 17 January 2025 at 1.32 am UTC (12.32 pm AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Mrs Hardes of 32 seconds duration;

(b)    on 31 January 2025 at 2.02 am UTC (1.02 pm AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Mrs Hardes of 2 seconds duration;

(c)    on 7 February 2025 at 4.02 am UTC (3.02 pm AEDT), there is a call from Mrs Hardes to Ms Peters of 29 seconds duration;

(d)    on 16 February 2025 at 22.46 pm UTC (17 February 2025 at 9.46 am AEDT), there is a call from Ms Peters to Mrs Hardes of 3 seconds duration, and then a return call from Mrs Hardes to Ms Peters at 9.47 am AEDT for 28 seconds; and

(e)    on 18 February 2025 at 5.35 am UTC (4.35 pm AEDT), there is a call from Mrs Hardes to Ms Peters of 24 seconds duration.

42    Ms Peters cross-examined Mrs Hardes and put to her that usually she would attend with a laptop, notebook or pen, but she had not done so on 20 March 2025. It does not matter whether this was the case or not. Nor do I accept Ms Peters’ explanation as to the purpose of her visit. Mrs Hardes’ gave unchallenged evidence as to the telephone discussion that occurred on 17 March 2025, including that Ms Peters had specifically asked to visit Mrs Hardes for the purpose of helping her with support coordination. I accept Mrs Hardes’ evidence.

43    Ms Peters submitted that she was only seeking to assist Mrs Hardes to transition to a new COS. Again, it does not presently matter why Ms Peters chose to do what she did, what matters is that she did it. I am satisfied that by engaging in the conduct set out above, Ms Peters was engaging in activities that related to the “direct provision of NDIS funded supports and services to NDIS Participants, including Support Coordination and Plan Management”.

44    Accordingly, I am satisfied that Ms Peters breached the Banning Order in relation to the services provided or to be provided to Mrs Hardes.

45    The Commissioner also relied upon a body of other evidence to the effect that Ms Peters had entered an arrangement with another person, Ms Kristina Maloney whereby the latter would take over her role as COS for various clients, including Mr Hugill and Mrs Hardes. The apparent effect of that arrangement was that Ms Peters would issue service agreements and invoices under the name of Ms Maloney which required payment to be made into a bank account operated by Ms Maloney, Ms Peters would provide the relevant work and would then arrange for Ms Maloney to transfer money to Ms Peters. The evidence discloses that 41 such invoices were issued and 29 of them were paid for a total amount of $6,773.16. The evidence further discloses that, on 20 and 25 February 2025, the amounts of $1,500, $1,400 and $3,600 (totalling $6,500) were transferred from Ms Maloney’s bank account to Ms Peters’ bank account. A further sum of $1,000 in cash was also withdrawn from Ms Maloney’s account on 21 February 2025.

46    Ms Peters did not deny that this conduct had occurred. It is conduct from which to be more comfortably satisfied (based on inferential reasoning) that Ms Peters had in fact acted in breach of the Banning Order in relation to Mr Hugill and Mrs Hardes. The Commissioner made it clear that the conduct involving Ms Peters and Ms Maloney did not itself give rise to any separate or independent breach of the Banning Order, and I make no such finding.

3.3    Conclusion as to contravention of s 73ZN(10)

47    For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that Ms Peters breached the Banning Order and thereby contravened s 73ZN(10) of the NDIS Act.

4.    DISPOSITION

48    The Commissioner initially submitted that if I was satisfied that Ms Peters had contravened s 73ZN(10), I should make a declaration to that effect. However, I am not satisfied that I should do so at this stage. As the Commissioner seeks to be heard as to the question of relief and remedy, it is more appropriate that I deal with the question of whether a declaration should be made as part of that determination. Doing so will enable me to determine the utility of making a declaration. I will list the proceedings for case management at a convenient time to progress the matter towards determination of those questions.

Associate:

Dated:    1 May 2026