The High Court ruled that Paul Maher was not entitled to pursue a Health Repayment Scheme application on behalf of his mother, Ann Maher, because he did not qualify as a “connected person” under the governing Act.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 9 April 2013, addressed preliminary issues in an appeal concerning a 2 October 2009 decision by the Health Repayment Scheme Appeals Office. That decision had confirmed the scheme administrator’s determination that Mr Maher was not entitled to claim on his mother’s behalf.
The preliminary hearing considered whether Mr Maher had standing, whether he was a “connected person” or “relevant person” under the Act, whether he could apply for repayment, and whether he was an “aggrieved person” entitled to appeal. The judge said the issues came down to whether Mr Maher was a connected person and, if not, whether he could apply simply because he was Mrs Maher’s son.
Mr Maher relied on a document signed by his mother on 6 May 2005, giving him permission to manage her financial affairs. The judge concluded that it did not provide valid authority at the time of the application. The judgment noted evidence of Mrs Maher’s mental incapacity, including an HSE certificate dated 8 January 2007, and Mr Maher’s own submissions that she could not make the application or validly nominate him. The judge held that the authority had lapsed once she was demonstrably incapacitated.
The Act permits a relevant person or a connected person to apply. It defines a relevant person as the person on whom the charges were imposed, and includes a living child among possible connected persons only where that child paid all or part of the recoverable health charge. The judge said that condition was not met in this case. As Mrs Maher could not apply herself and Mr Maher was not a connected person, the Act did not allow him to apply merely as her son.
The court answered “No” on standing, connected-person status and entitlement to apply. The questions about whether Mr Maher was a relevant person and an aggrieved person were recorded as “Not pursued”. The ruling resolved those preliminary issues; it did not determine whether any health charge was recoverable or order a repayment.