The High Court has refused Michael Sheehan’s application for judicial review of decisions concerning Jobseeker’s Allowance and Supplementary Welfare Allowance, holding that he had not exhausted statutory appeal routes and had not established an error of law or breach of fair procedures.
In a judgment dated 14 January 2010, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the court would refuse all the relief sought. The application challenged the Minister for Social and Family Affairs’ decision to stop Mr Sheehan’s Jobseeker’s Allowance and the Health Service Executive’s refusal of his application for supplementary welfare allowance.
The Minister had stopped Mr Sheehan’s Jobseeker’s Allowance of €204.30 a week from 1 April 2009. The stated reason was that he had failed to confirm his current address. Mr Sheehan appealed, but that appeal had not been decided by the time of the High Court hearing on 21 December 2009. An oral appeal hearing was scheduled for 18 January 2010 in Tralee. The judge said he made no comment on what should happen in that appeal.
The court found no basis to bypass that process. It said the applicant had not shown a want of jurisdiction, a breach of fair procedures or an error of law, and had not established that the appeal was unreasonably delayed. The judgment said officials could seek information relevant to entitlement and that Mr Sheehan had not provided the required information.
The HSE refused his supplementary welfare allowance application on 22 September 2009, citing insufficient evidence that he permanently lived at the Tralee address he had given. The judgment recounts that information in his application and supporting documents referred to both Tralee and an address in Glencar, where his former partner and child lived. The HSE said it needed residence and household information to assess his means. A deputy appeals officer upheld the refusal on 23 October 2009; Mr Sheehan did not appeal that decision further.
The judge declined judicial review of the HSE decision as well, again citing the unexhausted appeal route and the absence of a demonstrated error of law or breach of fair procedures. He noted that Mr Sheehan could make a fresh application with the necessary information. The court ultimately refused every form of relief sought.