The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Appeals Officer John Harraghy, holding that an Appeals Officer can consider whether disability services listed in a service statement could be provided sooner and recommend that the statement be changed. Only a Liaison Officer can directly amend it.
The case concerned a child, TM, who qualified under the Disability Act 2005. His mother, JN, sought an assessment in June 2018. A report issued in January 2020 said he needed occupational therapy, psychology, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy “ASAP”. A service statement issued in August 2020 gave March 2023 as the date for those services.
JN complained about the statement, particularly the start date. A Complaints Officer dismissed her complaint in August 2021, finding the statement accurate and compliant with the Act. Harraghy dismissed her appeal in November 2021, concluding that the statutory officers had no jurisdiction to change the dates for services.
The High Court ruled in JN and TM’s favour in July 2022 and sent the matter back for a fresh investigation and determination. The Supreme Court appeal concerned the officers’ powers under the Act. The HSE was a notice party.
In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2023, Justice Elizabeth Dunne said the Appeals Officer was wrong to conclude that he had no jurisdiction to consider service dates. An officer can investigate whether a date is inaccurate or incorrect, including whether services could be available sooner or elsewhere within the relevant HSE functional area. If a date should change, the officer can recommend that the Liaison Officer amend the statement. The Liaison Officer alone makes that amendment.
The Court also clarified that resource limits remain relevant. Officers must consider the practicality of providing services and the funds allocated for the relevant financial year. The judgment did not direct the HSE to provide TM’s services by an earlier date, decide that the March 2023 date was wrong, or require resources to be shifted between services. Those matters were not determined in the appeal.
The Court dismissed Harraghy’s appeal. It said the parties might need to be heard on the appropriate order because the issues between them appeared largely resolved.