The High Court has refused two families’ applications to quash decisions that their children did not meet the medical criteria for the disabled-driver tax concession scheme. It also refused their request to declare the regulation setting those criteria invalid or unreasonable.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2018, Ms Justice O’Regan ruled on judicial review proceedings brought by George Lennon, a minor suing through his mother and next friend Margaret Lennon, and by Alyssa Reeves, a minor suing through her mother and next friend Amanda Reeves. The judgment anonymises the applicants as George and Alyssa while giving their mothers’ names.
The Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal accepted that both children had severe and permanent disabilities. The decisions under challenge were dated 29 January 2018 in George’s case and 21 May 2018 in Alyssa’s. In each, the board said the applicant did not meet the strict medical criteria in the regulations. The attached letters identified the criteria considered by circling them.
The families argued that the board had not adequately explained its decisions or properly considered the evidence. In George’s case, they also argued that the board had failed to explain how it dealt with an apparent conflict between medical reports. The judge found that the cited physiotherapy report, recording that George walked 103.5 metres over three minutes, was not shown to be inaccurate or inconsistent with his mother’s account that he could walk only a few steps on a bad day but up to half a mile on a good day. The court also noted that the alleged discrepancy had not been brought to the board’s attention.
The judge said the assessment process involved explanation and inquiry, and that the decision letters identified the criteria applied and why each child did not come within them. She found the reasons sufficient to let the families decide whether to seek judicial review and to let the court review the decisions.
The families also contended that section 92 of the Finance Act 1989 entitled people with severe and permanent disabilities to tax rebates or remissions, and that Regulation 3 of the 1994 regulations unlawfully restricted that entitlement. The judge held that section 92 empowered the Minister for Finance to make regulations and required those regulations to set eligibility criteria, including further medical criteria. She found no basis to conclude that Regulation 3 exceeded that authority or was manifestly arbitrary, unjust, partial or unreasonable.
The court refused certiorari in both cases and refused the declaration that Regulation 3 was invalid or unreasonable, as well as the remaining declarations sought.