The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the refusal to accept a late appeal over a Domiciliary Care Allowance (DCA) application. The court found that the Chief Appeals Officer was entitled to consider the length of the delay and whether a reason had been given for it.
The applicant, Katy O’Connor, applied for DCA for her son on 27 August 2019. A deciding officer refused the application on 7 November 2019, concluding that the evidence did not show that the child needed care and attention substantially beyond that required by a child of the same age. The letter said further assessments were recommended and explained the options for seeking a review or appeal. It specified a 21-day appeal deadline.
O’Connor emailed the Social Welfare Appeals Office on 7 January 2020 to request an appeal and a review. The office replied on 17 January that it would not register a late appeal, citing the time since the decision. That refusal was not challenged in these proceedings.
Her solicitors made a further request on 31 March, asking the Chief Appeals Officer to use her discretion to accept a late appeal. They referred to O’Connor processing information, seeking advice and obtaining a school principal’s letter about her son receiving special needs assistant support. The Chief Appeals Officer refused on 8 April 2020, saying there were no grounds to accept the appeal given the passage of time.
The judicial review concerned that 8 April refusal. At the hearing, O’Connor no longer pursued challenges to the original DCA decision or certain related relief. Her remaining arguments included that the Chief Appeals Officer had not properly exercised her discretion and had applied the wrong test.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin found no evidence that the Chief Appeals Officer had delegated the decision, and said a claim based on delegation had not been pleaded. He also held that the governing regulations gave the officer discretion to accept or reject an appeal lodged more than 21 days after the decision. Considering delay and the explanation offered was lawful; the court did not have to substitute its own decision for the officer’s.
The judge said the reasons offered did not adequately explain either the missed deadline or the further delay before the March request. He dismissed the claim, finding that O’Connor had not established entitlement to the relief sought. The judgment says she may still seek a revision of the original decision under section 301(1)(a) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The parties were directed to correspond about the final order, including costs, with written submissions due within 21 days if they could not agree.