The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by two families challenging refusals to issue primary medical certificates under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994. It affirmed the High Court decisions, leaving the medical board refusals in place.
The appeals concerned decisions by the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal that George (formerly Eva) Lennon and Alyssa Reeves did not meet the scheme’s medical criteria. Both had sought judicial review, including orders quashing the board decisions and declarations that Regulation 3 was beyond the power granted by section 92 of the Finance Act 1989. The High Court dismissed their applications on 31 July 2018, and they appealed.
The court held that section 92 allowed, but did not require, the Minister for Finance to make regulations. If regulations were made, they had to set eligibility criteria, including further medical criteria. The court concluded that Regulation 3 fell within the discretion delegated by the Oireachtas. The appellants accepted that the Minister could limit eligibility to some severely and permanently disabled people. Their argument was that the criteria were unlawfully narrow, but the court found no evidence that they were so restrictive as to defeat the effect of the legislation. It said the court could not substitute its policy judgment for the Minister’s.
The families also argued that the medical board decisions lacked adequate reasons and did not show that the medical evidence had been considered. The board letters said the applicants did not meet the regulatory criteria and included notes identifying the potentially relevant criteria. The court considered those letters alongside the appeal process: applicants could submit evidence, were told which criteria would be applied, and were assessed by a three-doctor board that reviewed records, asked about medical history and conducted a physical examination.
The court noted that the relevant criteria operated as a negative test: the ability to use the legs, even to a limited extent, could mean an applicant did not qualify under the relevant categories. It referred to evidence that George could walk varying distances and that Alyssa used a walker for short distances and orthotics to support walking. It found the High Court was entitled to conclude that the brief reasons were sufficient when considered in the context of the process and evidence.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the High Court’s conclusions. It dismissed both appeals and affirmed the High Court decisions. It did not itself issue a primary medical certificate or make a separate finding on either child’s medical condition.