The Court of Appeal has dismissed a mother’s challenge to the refusal of domiciliary care allowance for her son after finding that her judicial review proceedings were brought too late.
The appellant, identified as B., applied for the monthly social welfare payment in March 2023 for her six-year-old son, who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
A deciding officer refused the application the following month. The decision found that it had not been established that the child required care substantially beyond that normally required by a child of the same age, or that full-time care would be required for at least 12 months. An appeals officer upheld that decision on January 15, 2024.
B. issued judicial review proceedings on July 30, more than three months after the appeal decision. She argued, among other things, that the appeals officer should not have considered an opinion prepared by a Department of Social Protection medical assessor, or alternatively that she should have been allowed to cross-examine the assessor.
The High Court refused leave in December 2024 because the case was out of time and no sufficient basis for extending time had been shown.
Ms Justice Hyland, giving the Court of Appeal judgment, upheld that conclusion. B. said she had contacted an autism support charity shortly after receiving the decision, later had difficulty reconnecting with it, and that caring full-time for two children with additional needs contributed to delay.
The court accepted those responsibilities created significant pressure but held that they did not, without more, meet the statutory test. In particular, B. had not shown that the circumstances causing the delay were outside her control or could not reasonably have been anticipated.
The court separately indicated that a review under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act was not an adequate remedy for the legal issue she wished to raise. However, those observations did not alter the result because the judicial review proceedings were already out of time.
The appeal was dismissed, with no costs order because the hearing was ex parte.