The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a Romanian citizen who challenged the refusal of Child Benefit, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Supplementary Welfare Allowance.
The appeal concerned a High Court order refusing judicial review of decisions by the Minister for Social Protection. The benefits had been refused on the basis that the appellant had not established a right to reside in Ireland and therefore could not meet the habitual residence requirement.
The appellant said she had been a jobseeker and argued that Jobseeker’s Allowance was intended to help people access the labour market, so it should not be treated as social assistance subject to that residence test. The Court of Appeal held that the allowance was a special non-contributory cash benefit, providing a minimum subsistence payment, and could be subject to the habitual residence requirement.
The court noted that the appellant had stopped selling the Big Issue in or around August 2013. When she applied for Jobseeker’s Allowance in September 2014, she declared that she was available for and genuinely seeking work, but left unanswered questions about the work she sought and her efforts to find it. The court said signing the declaration alone did not establish that she was a jobseeker.
However, the Minister’s refusal had been based on the residence requirement, and the court said it was neither necessary nor permissible in this appeal to decide whether the appellant met the requirements to be considered a genuine jobseeker. It also declined to address the Child Benefit ground because it had not been included among the grounds on which leave for judicial review was granted.
The appellant separately argued that the refusal of Supplementary Welfare Allowance lacked the individual assessment required by EU law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the assessment of her circumstances was sufficient. It upheld the conclusion that she had not shown a right to reside after her self-employment ended and was not entitled to the allowance.
The court added that she had not claimed to have comprehensive sickness insurance, another requirement for a right to reside under the relevant provision. It said that, even if her challenge to the assessment had succeeded, quashing the refusal would have been futile in the absence of that requirement.
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal.