The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Catalin Petecel over whether he could claim disability allowance without meeting the habitual residence condition.
In a judgment delivered on 15 July 2020, the Court concluded that disability allowance was correctly classified as a special non-contributory allowance under EU law. It said the payment was not governed by the rules on exportability of benefits, so the State could impose a habitual residence condition. The Court declined to refer the classification question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The judgment followed an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the same proceedings. In May 2020, the Court held that the High Court and Court of Appeal had erred in finding that Mr Petecel could not bring judicial review proceedings instead of pursuing a statutory appeal. That first judgment did not decide the substantive classification issue. The parties were invited to make further written submissions on the earnings disregard and disqualification rules.
The appellant argued that the allowance had a rehabilitation or care purpose. He relied on provisions permitting recipients to work or train in specified circumstances without losing the payment, and on EU case law concerning benefits intended to improve health and quality of life. He also argued that eligibility did not require incapacity for all work, and that employment was permitted and encouraged.
The respondents described the allowance as income support intended to provide a minimum level of subsistence. They argued it was not a care allowance, was not tied to a person’s care needs or related costs, and had no medical rehabilitation element. They said the disqualification rules were controls to ensure continuing eligibility.
Justice Iseult O’Malley said the allowance protected against poverty, rather than having a purpose of improving health except insofar as poverty might endanger it. It did not assist recovery, meet a particular need created by disability, or cover associated healthcare costs. The medical examination rules primarily checked initial and continuing eligibility. The earnings disregard removed a financial disincentive to work but did not itself improve a disabled person’s earning capacity.
The Court also refused to accept a supplemental affidavit and said it would place no reliance on a newspaper article or guidelines published in February 2020, which postdated Mr Petecel’s claim. The appeal was dismissed.