The High Court has refused to extend the time for Fintan Jones to seek judicial review of a decision disallowing his appeal over the cessation of his COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP). The court did not consider the substantive grounds of his challenge.
Jones’s PUP stopped after he received income of about €50 a week from part-time insurable employment. He argued that he should be treated like a self-employed person who could earn up to €960 over eight weeks without losing PUP. Before the appeal decision, he requested an oral hearing, which was not held. He also raised concerns about reasons for the decision and, in oral submissions, said he had not received a Department submission. The court did not rule on those issues.
Justice Marguerite Bolger said the judicial review application was opened on 4 November 2022, about six weeks after the three-month time limit. Jones said his work was busiest from June to September, when he worked five or six nights a week and often got home at 6am. He also cited responsibilities as his family’s primary caregiver, including supporting his youngest child, who entered sixth year in August or September 2022.
The judge accepted that Jones was busy but found that the demands he described were not exceptional and did not amount to a good and sufficient reason for a six-week extension. She said litigants are expected to arrange matters with their solicitors within the statutory time limit. The respondents had not pleaded that the delay caused them prejudice, but the judge said the absence of asserted prejudice did not entitle Jones to an extension.
The judgment also noted that Jones retained a statutory right to seek a review under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 at any time. The court refused the extension of time. As a result, it said it was neither appropriate nor necessary to address the respondents’ separate objection concerning an alternative remedy or the substantive grounds for relief.
The judge gave an indicative view that the respondents should receive their costs, referring to their success in opposing the extension and to a June 2023 letter that had offered to bear their own costs if Jones withdrew the proceedings. Final orders, including costs, were listed for mention at 10.30am on 15 October.