The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by two women over how mortgage payments made by their former partners are counted when assessing their means for social welfare benefits.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2023, Mr Justice Binchy said the “net cash value” of housing costs paid by a liable relative is the value of those payments less the statutory amount disregarded under the welfare rules. The court agreed with the interpretation used by the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection and upheld the High Court’s decisions on that issue.
The appeals were brought by Deirdre Brennan, who claimed One-Parent Family Payment, and Margaret Bracken, who claimed Disability Allowance. Their former partners paid the mortgage repayments on the homes where they lived. The payments had been treated as non-cash benefits in means assessments.
The women argued that the value of the housing benefit should not automatically be equated with the mortgage repayments. They said it should instead be assessed individually, potentially by reference to the home’s rental value. They also pointed to possible anomalies if mortgage payments changed or an artificially low rent were agreed.
The court found that the statutory scheme calls for the prescribed non-cash benefit to be assessed after deducting the statutory disregard. In the judgment’s words, “the non-cash benefit to be assessed is the value of that benefit in the hands of a claimant less the prescribed sum to be disregarded.” The court said this interpretation produces an exact result and is consistent with the legislation’s purpose of assessing applicants’ means.
The court rejected the argument that potential abuse or anomalies required a different reading. It also said the comparison with direct provision was not equivalent because the relevant provision for housing costs expressly provides for deduction of a specified sum.
Although both cases involved disputes about earlier benefits decisions, the appeals before the Court of Appeal proceeded on the shared question of statutory interpretation. In Ms Bracken’s case, the Minister had earlier agreed that a weekly statutory disregard should have been applied and had offered to consent to quashing the Chief Appeals Officer’s decision on that limited basis. That issue was not the ground pursued in the appeals.
The court dismissed both appeals. It gave a preliminary view that the Minister was entitled to costs, to be determined by adjudication if not agreed. Either appellant could seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs within 14 days of delivery of the judgment.