The High Court struck out Joseph O’Loughlin’s special summons against the Minister for Social Protection, ruling that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2014, Mr Justice Michael White said the summons used the wrong procedure and did not state a clear point of law for the court to consider. The order was made under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
O’Loughlin’s claim concerned an Appeals Officer’s decision of 2 April 2007, following an oral hearing, on his claim for occupational injury disablement benefit. He had sought benefit from 10 October 2005 for carpal tunnel injury relating to his work at Dell. A Deciding Officer had disallowed the claim, but the appeal was allowed and he was informed by letter dated 18 April 2007. The judgment records that his main complaint was that the decision in his favour had been incorrectly recorded.
The judgment also recounts a separate 2008 appeal concerning Disability Allowance and Occupational Injury Benefit. In that matter, an Appeals Officer upheld the decision that O’Loughlin had not developed a prescribed disease through later employment with, or at the business of, Valencia Technologies.
A review under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 was carried out by the Chief Appeals Officer. In a written decision dated 13 March 2014, the Chief Appeals Officer rejected O’Loughlin’s contention that the 2006 appeal decision had been wrongly implemented.
The High Court explained that section 327 allows an appeal to the court from an Appeals Officer’s decision or a revised Chief Appeals Officer decision on a question of law. It said a challenge to such decisions must use that procedure or proceed by judicial review. The court found the special summons incoherent and difficult to follow, with no clearly stated legal point. It also said it contained general and incoherent serious allegations against a Department officer.
The judgment records only the order striking out the special summons. It does not state that the court determined the underlying benefit entitlement on its merits.