The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by N.L. over the refusal to revise an earlier decision denying him disability allowance.
N.L., who sued through his mother and next friend J.M., had applied for disability allowance in October 2021. The Department refused the claim the following month on the basis that he had not established that he was substantially restricted in undertaking suitable employment because of a specified disability.
An appeal was disallowed in February 2022. N.L. then sought a revision under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, relying on further material including information from his school, a doctor and the National Learning Network. An Appeals Officer refused to revise the earlier decision in October 2022.
The High Court rejected N.L.’s appeal on questions of law in 2024, and the Court of Appeal has now affirmed that outcome.
In judgment delivered on 12 December 2025, Mr Justice Anthony M. Collins rejected seven grounds of appeal. He held that the Appeals Officer had adequately explained why the additional material did not demonstrate that the February 2022 decision had been made in error.
The court also rejected an argument based on the Appeals Officer’s use of the phrase “seeking suitable employment” rather than the statutory wording “undertaking suitable employment”. It found that the wording error had not been shown to affect the outcome.
Other arguments concerning the definition of suitable employment, the burden of proof and the relevance of carer’s allowance and domiciliary care allowance were also dismissed. The court said each social welfare payment has its own statutory eligibility criteria.
The appeal was dismissed in full and the High Court judgment and order were affirmed. The High Court’s no-costs order was left untouched, while the Court of Appeal provisionally proposed awarding the respondents their appeal costs, subject to further written submissions.