The High Court has refused an applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the Legal Aid Board’s refusal to grant legal aid for a pending Circuit Court appeal connected to a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) determination.
In a ruling delivered on 9 October 2023, Ms Justice Siobhan Phelan said the applicant had not shown an arguable basis for the court to interfere with the Board’s decision. The ruling concerns the application for leave only; it does not decide the pending Circuit Court appeal.
The applicant had sought legal aid for an appeal arising from District Court enforcement of an RTB determination that his tenancy had been lawfully terminated and that rent arrears and damages of €3,382.47 were due, with further rent accruing daily. He had been evicted before the Circuit Court appeal came before it and was no longer in possession of the property.
The Board obtained two opinions from counsel on the proposed appeal. Counsel considered the applicant’s complaints, including his reliance on section 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and his medical circumstances, but maintained that the appeal had little merit and a low prospect of success. The Board refused legal aid in March 2021; its review and Appeals Committee appeal did not change that decision.
The applicant argued that the Board had acted unreasonably, failed to give proper consideration to section 125, and had not adequately considered his disability. The judge said the Board had considered the issues raised and that there was no arguable basis to challenge its assessment of the appeal or its treatment of section 125. She also found no arguable basis for saying the Board had disregarded the medical evidence.
The ruling recognised that an applicant’s disability-related needs may be relevant to the broader benefit of legal representation, including access to the courts, when the Board applies the statutory merits test. But the judge concluded that this did not make the applicant’s challenge arguable. The Board had also relied on section 24 of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, which requires refusal where its reasonably held opinion is that a person of adequate means would not pursue the services privately and would not be advised to do so. The judge found the Board’s opinion rationally formed and said it was obliged to refuse aid on that basis.
The judge therefore refused leave to proceed with judicial review. The ruling did not determine the merits of the applicant’s Circuit Court appeal.