The High Court declined to quash two decisions refusing domiciliary care allowance to an applicant for her son, finding that she could pursue an independent statutory appeal. But it declared that the Minister for Social Protection had failed to properly consider the evidence submitted with her application and review.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.D. and Mrs D., applied for the allowance in June 2014. Her son has a developmental disability, and she is his primary carer. The application was refused in September 2014 because he was not considered a “qualified child”. A review in December left that decision unchanged.
The judgment records that the applicant supplied reports from medical and care professionals, including a general practitioner, and diary extracts listing more than 50 hospital and related appointments. Departmental medical assessors carried out desktop reviews. They concluded that the material did not show a need for substantially more care and attention than a child of the same age without the disability.
The applicant sought a further physical assessment, arguing that there was a conflict in the medical evidence. The Department refused, saying the diagnosis and need for extra care were not disputed; the issue was whether the level of care met the statutory threshold. The court held that the legislation gave the deciding officer no power to require such an assessment at the application stage. The relevant statutory provision applied to a qualified child already receiving the allowance.
The applicant had lodged an appeal but withdrew it. Justice Baker held that the independent appeal process was a suitable remedy: it could include an oral hearing, and the applicant could present evidence about her son’s daily care. The judicial review challenge to the September and December decisions was therefore premature, and the court refused certiorari, the remedy that would have quashed them.
However, the judge found that the two short assessor reports did not analyse the applicant’s evidence or identify the factors considered insufficient. The decision letters repeated the statutory test without showing meaningful engagement with the individual material. The court concluded that the decision maker had failed to properly consider all the evidence and declared that the September and December decisions breached fair procedures, natural justice and constitutional justice.
The judgment did not order payment of the allowance or require a fresh medical examination. It left the statutory appeal available to the applicant.