The High Court refused an applicant’s judicial review challenge after the Chief Appeals Officer proposed to revise his Invalidity Pension appeal decision and arrange an oral hearing before a different appeals officer.
The applicant had received Illness Benefit from January 2012 to March 2014, apart from a short break. After 39 years with Aer Lingus, he had retired on medical grounds following four hip operations. His application for an Invalidity Pension was refused in May 2013, and a request to revise that decision was also refused.
He appealed in August 2013 and asked for an oral hearing. The appeal was instead decided on a summary basis and disallowed on 30 January 2014. The appeals officer said the evidence showed restrictions and inability to do the applicant’s usual work, but did not establish that he was incapable of work for life. The applicant had provided a consultant orthopaedic surgeon’s letter stating that he would be unfit for his job or any job in the future.
The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the conflicting medical evidence called for an oral hearing and that the summary decision should be quashed. After proceedings began, the Chief Appeals Officer said the hearing request had not been followed in error and proposed to use the statutory power to revise the decision and reschedule an oral hearing. An affidavit also raised a concern that the appeals officer may have applied the wrong test.
Mr Justice Michael Peart considered whether the Chief Appeals Officer could direct an oral hearing while considering a revision under section 318 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005. He held that the section allowed revision where a decision appeared erroneous because of a mistake of law or fact. Read with section 313, which empowers an appeals officer to take evidence on oath at a hearing, it also permitted an oral hearing for the revision.
Because the applicant was being offered an oral hearing through that revision process, the judge said it was unnecessary to consider quashing the original appeal decision. He also refused the requested declarations and an order compelling a hearing within 30 days. The judicial review application was refused. The judgment did not decide the underlying entitlement to an Invalidity Pension.