The Court of Appeal has refused a woman’s application for judicial review of a decision to determine her carer’s allowance appeal without an oral hearing, because she had not first pursued an available revision procedure.
The case concerned an overpayment assessment of €54,184.10. A deciding officer concluded that the appellant was entitled to a lower rate of carer’s allowance from 2014 to 2018 and no allowance from 2018 to 2019. The officer directed repayment in January 2020. An appeals officer later upheld that decision after considering the appeal summarily.
The appellant had asked for an oral hearing and listed grounds including that the family’s means had been calculated incorrectly, that her husband’s means should not count, and that the decision was contrary to EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights Act. She said further grounds and submissions would follow, but provided no additional material to the appeals officer. After being invited to submit evidence, she said she wished to rely on her earlier letter and present her case at an oral hearing.
The appeals officer said the appeal could be decided summarily on the available information. He also urged the Department to review the detailed calculations to ensure they were correct, given the size of the overpayment.
The High Court refused judicial review. On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether a revision under section 317 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 was an alternative remedy the appellant should have used. It held that the revision procedure was broad enough to consider the material she later put before the court, address her request for an oral hearing and provide a hearing if the appeals officer considered one necessary.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant had an available remedy suited to her concerns and had failed to pursue it. That failure meant she was not entitled to the judicial review relief she sought.
The court did not decide whether the appeals officer was entitled to determine the original appeal summarily. It said that question was unnecessary to resolve in light of its conclusion on the alternative remedy. The appeals officer would have to consider any revision application on its merits. The court said it would arrange a short hearing on costs unless the parties agreed them.