The High Court has refused two judicial review applications by Augustine Tony Ayavoro challenging decisions on his claims for Jobseeker’s Allowance and Supplementary Welfare Allowance (SWA).
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2009, Mr Justice O’Neill found that the information sought by officials about Mr Ayavoro’s means and habitual residence was relevant and reasonably necessary to assess his eligibility. He concluded that Mr Ayavoro had ample opportunity to provide it, but did not meet the requests. The court refused all relief in the first proceedings.
Mr Ayavoro had arrived in Ireland from the United Kingdom in January 2008 and applied for Jobseeker’s Allowance and SWA. Officials sought bank and credit card statements, evidence of residence and information about payments into his account, including a weekly £119 payment. He said that payment related to his mother’s pension credit and disputed requests for his wife’s bank details. He also alleged that officials’ actions were racially motivated and breached his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court rejected those claims. It found no evidence of dishonesty, racism or bad faith by officials, and said the evidence did not establish destitution or an Article 3 breach. It also rejected the arguments that Mr Ayavoro had a legitimate expectation of a particular interview and form, and that he had been denied a fair opportunity to respond. His claims for damages therefore failed as well.
The second proceedings concerned a later SWA decision and the refusal of an appeal against the Jobseeker’s Allowance decision. Mr Ayavoro’s wife had been awarded the maximum SWA for herself, him as an adult dependent, and their two children. The court noted that an adult-dependent payment was temporarily withheld in error, but was largely restored before he sought leave for judicial review. It also criticised his failure to disclose those circumstances in his application for leave.
The court rejected his argument that a secretary’s mistaken communication that he appeared entitled to benefit created a legitimate expectation. It also upheld the appeal officer’s decision on the Jobseeker’s Allowance, finding that an inaccurate description of a bank account as a credit card account was a clerical error and that the officer had considered relevant material.
Because the family had been receiving SWA since 7 August 2008, the judge found the second proceedings had been moot throughout. He refused the relief sought in those proceedings too. The judgment records refusals of judicial review relief; it does not make a new award of benefits.