The Court of Appeal has ruled that the HSE must prioritise applications for disability needs assessments in chronological order across the country, rather than separately within each Community Health Organisation region. It allowed an appeal by a minor, but left the wording of a proposed declaration and the question of costs for later consideration.
The appeal concerned regulation 5 of the Disability (Assessment of Needs, Service Statements and Redress) Regulations 2007. The court held that the requirement to process applications by the date they were received governs the carrying out of assessments, not just administrative work on applications. It also held that the priority order applies across the HSE as a whole, not separately in each region.
The appellant’s mother applied for an assessment in April 2016, when he was just under five. More than two and a half years later he was still waiting. After the family obtained leave to seek an order compelling the HSE to complete the assessment within eight weeks, the HSE consented to that order in December 2018. The report issued in January 2019, 33 months after the application.
The High Court had refused the declarations sought. On appeal, the HSE argued that the regulation governed only the processing of applications and that regional assessment arrangements reflected the practical demands of multidisciplinary assessments and the use of resources. The Court of Appeal rejected the HSE’s interpretation of regulation 5. It said the statutory wording required national chronological priority, while the HSE retained discretion over how to organise and deliver assessments, including by region, subject to that priority.
The ruling does not decide whether any other applicant has individually suffered a breach. The court said that question would depend on the legal arguments in any future case brought on an applicant’s behalf. It allowed the appeal and proposed a declaration that the HSE had acted ultra vires by carrying out assessments otherwise than in countrywide chronological order. That declaration was proposed subject to further submissions; the judgment does not record it as a final order. Costs were also left to be addressed later.