The High Court has ruled that a social welfare appeals officer wrongly excluded relevant information when assessing an anonymised woman’s means in her disability allowance application. The court ordered that this part of the decision be set aside and reconsidered in accordance with the law.
In a judgment delivered on 28 March 2024, Mr Justice Alexander Owens found that the appeals officer had wrongly treated the woman’s separation from her husband, which occurred after she applied, as irrelevant to the means calculation. The law requires account to be taken of income the claimant or spouse could reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year. The court said the assessment could therefore consider whether the couple were likely to live apart during that period.
The woman, identified in the judgment as L.A., applied for disability allowance on 6 April 2022. Her application was refused, and an appeals officer upheld that decision on 3 October 2022, finding both that her means exceeded the eligibility limit and that she had not established substantial restriction from suitable work due to disability.
She asked the appeals officer to revise that decision, providing an affidavit with further information about her marriage, finances, work history and health. On 21 December 2022, the officer declined to revise the decision. L.A. then sought judicial review, arguing that relevant information had been disregarded and that the medical assessment was irrational.
Justice Owens rejected the respondents’ preliminary argument that L.A. should first have asked the Chief Appeals Officer to revise the decision. He held that claimants are not required to use that procedure before pursuing judicial review, and that the statutory right to appeal an appeals officer’s decision to the High Court on a question of law does not depend on first seeking such a revision.
On medical eligibility, however, the judge found no legal error in the appeals officer’s conclusion. Although the officer incorrectly said L.A. had provided no information about her daily activities, education or work history, the judge considered the additional information minimal and found the conclusion that she had not shown substantial restriction from light or sedentary work was properly reasoned and open to a reasonable decision-maker.
Because the medical eligibility finding remained valid, the court said it could not set aside the overall refusal to revise the earlier decision. It declared that the means assessment was legally flawed, set aside that discrete conclusion and sent it back for reconsideration. The judgment also said L.A. may seek a further revision under the statutory process if she provides new evidence or facts relevant to her eligibility at the time of application. Costs and any other issues were listed for 15 April 2024.