The High Court dismissed Paula May Gladys Douglas’s appeal against refusals of jobseeker’s allowance and supplementary welfare allowance, finding no serious and significant error in the decisions under review.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 6 February 2012. The appeal, under section 327 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, was limited to whether the appeals officers’ decisions were undermined by a serious and significant error, or a series of errors amounting to one.
Douglas had come to Ireland from England on 26 September 2011, after living in Great Britain all her life. She had been unemployed since July 2006 and applied for social welfare shortly after arriving. The court said the relevant application dates were 26 September for jobseeker’s allowance and 6 October for supplementary welfare allowance. Appeals officers had refused the claims, including on habitual residence grounds.
Douglas told the court she intended to settle permanently in Ireland. She relied on arrangements including moving her furniture, giving up her flat in England, taking a long-term lease in Ireland, registering with a doctor and planning to study for a law diploma in Dublin. She argued that her circumstances showed a firm decision to move and that the refusal of support was discriminatory.
On availability for work, the judge considered her plan to attend lectures and her stated ability to take work compatible with that schedule. He concluded that the refusal on this ground did not disclose a serious error, noting that she was not ordinarily available for more than occasional work during the week.
The court also considered the habitual residence assessment and Douglas’s arguments under European Union law. It said the Irish criteria applied irrespective of nationality and compared the statutory factors with European case law, including length and continuity of residence, employment, centre of interest and future intentions. In light of her having lived in the United Kingdom for 49 years before arriving in Ireland around four and a half months before applying, the judge found no basis to interfere with the appeals officers’ decisions.
The judgment also addressed a letter saying she would not be considered for further supplementary payments other than the cost of returning to Britain. The judge said there was nothing before him indicating malicious intent, though the wording had caused offence. The appeal was dismissed; the court did not grant either allowance.