The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Cornelia Mocanu against the refusal to extend the deadline for challenging a decision about her State Pension (Non-Contributory). It affirmed the High Court’s order and did not decide whether the original social welfare decision was legally correct.
The Chief Appeals Officer of the Social Welfare Appeals Office had upheld the refusal of Ms Mocanu’s pension application. The stated reason included that she had not proved a right of residence in Ireland. Her intended appeal concerned whether she had to show that she was dependent on her daughter in Romania before moving to Ireland.
Ms Mocanu’s appeal to the High Court was already outside the 21-day time limit when her notice of motion was issued on 7 April 2021. The High Court refused to extend the deadline. It accepted that her family had tried to find legal help in January 2021, during a period of COVID-19 self-isolation, but found no substantive excuse for the much longer delay that followed.
The Court of Appeal said there was no evidence of efforts to find a solicitor between 19 January and mid-February. It also found no explanation for why the first meeting with solicitors took place only on 19 March, or why proceedings were issued on 7 April and served two weeks later. The court acknowledged the appellant’s limited English and reliance on family members, but said the evidence did not explain those gaps. It also said the existence of lockdown restrictions, without evidence that they prevented a timely appeal, did not justify extending the deadline.
The court rejected the argument that the lack of prejudice to the respondent should itself support an extension. It said the respondent had a legitimate interest in upholding the statutory time limit. The court also held that the High Court was entitled to consider the delay up to service, not just filing.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court judgment and order. It said there was no need to examine the intended appeal’s substance or consider a proposed reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgment records a provisional view that the respondent should receive the costs of the appeal, while giving Ms Mocanu 14 days to make a short written submission on why a different costs order should be made.