The High Court has refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing domiciliary care allowance for her son. The proceedings were outside the three-month time limit, and the court found that she had not shown good and sufficient reason to extend it. The court also held that she could seek revision of the appeals officer’s decision under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.
The applicant’s claim, dated 21 March 2023, concerned her son, who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A deciding officer refused the claim on 27 April 2023, finding that the evidence did not establish the required level of care or that it was likely to be needed for at least 12 consecutive months. A further decision on 12 July 2023 found no basis to revise that refusal.
An appeals officer rejected the appeal on 15 January 2024. The officer acknowledged evidence that the child was severely affected in several areas, but concluded that the evidence did not show care and attention continually and substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age.
The applicant began judicial review proceedings on 30 July 2024. She argued, among other things, that an appeals officer could not rely on a departmental medical assessor’s opinion, or alternatively that fairness required disclosure and an opportunity to question the assessor and present her own medical evidence. She also challenged the reasons given for the appeal decision. The judge noted that the applicant had received a copy of the assessor’s opinion in July 2023, but had not exhibited it in the judicial review proceedings.
The applicant said she was upset and confused by the appeal outcome, had received advice from a charity to make a later application, and had caring responsibilities for two young boys with special needs. The judge found these explanations did not justify the delay, which was three months beyond the prescribed period. The applicant had not said when she first contacted her solicitors, and there was no evidence she had formed an intention to bring judicial review within the three-month limit.
The judge also found that the complaints could be addressed through a section 317 revision request. The applicant could ask the appeals officer to reconsider the decision not to hold an oral hearing, put forward her fair-procedure arguments, and seek to submit evidence from the child’s GP. The court refused leave on both the delay and alternative-remedy grounds. It did not decide whether judicial review should also be refused because of the separate right to appeal to the High Court on a question of law.