The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Lacramioara Amariei after finding that a statutory social welfare review procedure provided an adequate alternative to judicial review.
Mr Justice Woulfe delivered a separate judgment on 25 March 2026. He agreed with Ms Justice Donnelly’s ultimate decision and with the principles governing when courts should require a person to use an available alternative remedy before pursuing judicial review.
The dispute concerned section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. That provision allows the Chief Appeals Officer to revise a decision of an Appeals Officer in specified circumstances.
Mr Justice Woulfe concluded that Amariei ought to have sought a revision under section 318. He found that this procedure was an adequate alternative remedy despite a potential complication if the Chief Appeals Officer refused to revise the original decision.
On that narrower issue, he differed from Ms Justice Donnelly. He held that section 327 of the 2005 Act does not provide a claimant with a statutory appeal to the High Court from a refusal by the Chief Appeals Officer to revise an Appeals Officer’s decision.
The judge relied in part on a 2010 amendment which introduced section 327A. He considered that amendment to reflect a legislative distinction between a decision to revise and a decision not to revise, consistent with earlier Supreme Court authority in Castleisland Cattle Breeding Society Ltd v Minister for Social and Family Affairs.
Mr Justice Woulfe accepted that a claimant faced with a refusal to revise might instead need to appeal the original Appeals Officer decision and seek an extension of time if necessary.
He nevertheless held that this procedural difficulty did not make the section 318 remedy inadequate. Its advantages outweighed that complication.
For those reasons, he joined in dismissing Amariei’s appeal.