The High Court has refused relief in two judicial review cases brought by parents on behalf of children with disabilities, ruling that the Disability Act 2005 and related regulations do not give them an enforceable right to have an assessment report reviewed.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered the judgment on 24 October 2024. The cases concerned whether the Health Service Executive (HSE) could be compelled to start or complete reviews of the children’s assessments of need within a specified or reasonable period.
In one case, an assessment report for AM, then aged nine, was issued on 15 September 2020 and set a review date of 15 September 2021. The HSE had begun a review by the time of the hearing in June 2024, and the parties said it was close to completion, pending an outstanding psychiatric report. The applicants sought a declaration that the HSE was required to complete that review within a reasonable time.
In the other case, an assessment report for CM, then aged 12, was issued on 17 December 2020 and set a review date a year later. After the family’s solicitors sought a review in February 2022, an Assessment Officer sent a review application form, which the mother completed. The matter did not progress further. The applicants sought orders compelling the HSE to commence and complete a review, as well as a declaration that it had failed to meet its statutory obligations.
The families argued that the requirement for an assessment report to state when a review “should be carried out” created an enforceable entitlement. The HSE disputed that interpretation and argued that a further assessment under section 9 of the Act was the appropriate route.
Justice Bradley held that section 8(7)(b)(iv), which requires the report to state the period within which a review should be carried out, did not create an enforceable right to a review. He interpreted “should be” as aspirational rather than mandatory. The 2007 Regulations require a review date to be specified no later than 12 months after the report is issued, but the court found that this did not make the review itself legally enforceable.
The ruling concerned the claimed right to compel a review through these proceedings. The court noted that the legislation provides a separate process for applying for a further assessment and includes statutory complaint and enforcement mechanisms for specified matters.
The court refused the requested mandamus and declaratory relief in CM’s case and refused the declaration sought in AM’s case. It listed both matters for mention on 31 October 2024 to address costs and any related matters.