The High Court has refused an applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings over the refusal of domiciliary care allowance for her daughter, finding that she could first seek a statutory revision of the appeals officer’s decision.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 29 November 2024. The case concerned an ex parte application for leave, not a full hearing of the judicial review claims or a decision on the child’s eligibility for the allowance.
The applicant’s claim was received on 8 May 2023. At that time, her daughter was 10 and had diagnoses of ADHD and dyslexia. A deciding officer refused the claim on 31 May 2023, saying the evidence did not establish that the child needed substantially more care than a child of the same age or was likely to need full-time care for at least 12 consecutive months. The officer said the child’s condition and need for some additional care were not disputed.
The applicant appealed. In May 2024, an appeals officer upheld the refusal, citing an inconsistency between the general practitioner’s assessment of the child’s abilities and the applicant’s account. The appeals officer said later material described changes after the application date and gave greater weight to the GP’s initial assessment in the absence of contrary clinical information from on or before that date.
The applicant argued that the inconsistency required an oral hearing. She also said the Department’s submission and some accompanying material had not been shared with her. Separately, she challenged the validity of a provision in the Social Welfare (Appeals) Regulations governing material supplied to appeals officers.
The judge held that the complaints could be addressed by seeking revision under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. He said the applicant could request confirmation of whether the appeals officer had received any material beyond what she knew about, seek any additional material, and ask for the decision not to hold an oral hearing to be revised. The court did not decide whether an oral hearing was required or whether the applicant qualified for the allowance.
The judge also refused leave on the challenge to the regulations, finding it unnecessary to consider their validity given the alternative remedy. He added that the challenge did not meet the threshold of arguability. The judgment noted a separate statutory route to appeal to the High Court on a question of law but did not decide whether that route would independently bar judicial review.