The Court of Appeal dismissed Avril Malone’s appeal over the process used to refuse domiciliary care allowance (DCA) for her son, holding that the issues had become moot after she won a separate statutory appeal for the allowance.
In a judgment delivered on 10 December 2014, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said the dispute had initially been real. Malone had challenged decisions refusing her March 2012 application and a subsequent review, arguing that the Minister for Social Protection should have arranged a medical examination in light of an alleged conflict in medical evidence and had failed to give adequate reasons.
The High Court dismissed her judicial review proceedings in October 2013. The judge concluded that the submitted medical evidence was not disputed, no examination was required on the facts, and the reasons for refusal were clear. He also said the statutory appeals process was the appropriate route. No order for costs was made.
Malone then appealed the refusal through the statutory process. Her application was allowed on 17 January 2014, with the DCA awarded retrospectively from 1 April 2012. She nevertheless lodged an appeal against the High Court judgment in March 2014.
The Minister applied to have that appeal struck out as moot. The Court of Appeal said Malone’s successful statutory appeal had resolved the dispute over her entitlement to the allowance, leaving no practical significance in deciding whether the earlier application and review had been handled lawfully.
The court also rejected her argument that the appeal could matter to a possible future review. It said any later review would concern whether circumstances had changed since entitlement was established, a different question from whether her original application met the qualifying criteria. The grounds of appeal were specific to the earlier decisions and would not determine how a future review had to be conducted.
The court distinguished the case from a precedent relied on by Malone, where a High Court declaration interpreting a statutory provision could constrain a public body’s future conduct. No comparable declaration had been made in her case. The court added that she could challenge any future adverse decision through available appeal rights or judicial review.
It dismissed the appeal, finding no justifiable basis to resolve issues that were moot. The judgment did not reconsider the statutory appeal decision granting the DCA.