The High Court refused Damien Fagan leave to bring a judicial review after the Department of Social Protection reversed decisions that had reduced and suspended his Jobseeker’s Allowance and refunded €1,824. The court held that the refund made the proposed proceedings moot; it did not rule on the substantive merits of his complaints about the JobPath process or the appeals procedure.
Mr Fagan had been referred to JobPath in July 2016. Seetec Employment and Skills Ireland, which delivered the programme under contract to the Department, prepared a Personal Progression Plan (PPP) for him to sign. He declined, objecting to wording that said his payment could be reduced or stopped if he failed to cooperate. He maintained that he was willing to engage with JobPath but would not sign away his rights to a private company.
The Department reduced his allowance by €44 a week from August 2016 and later disqualified him from receiving it for nine weeks. It also refused his application for Supplementary Welfare Allowance. Mr Fagan appealed. An oral appeal hearing began in November 2016 but was suspended after he insisted on recording it. The Appeals Office offered to reconvene the hearing without a recording or decide the appeal on documentary evidence. The High Court judgment records that no appeal decision had issued.
Mr Fagan sought leave to challenge the benefit decisions and the refusal to let him record the appeal. His submissions alleged, among other matters, unfair procedures and unlawful conduct. The respondents disputed his claims and argued that leave should be refused on several grounds, including that the case was moot after the refund, that the proceedings were late and that alternative remedies had not been exhausted.
The Department later revised the benefit decisions under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, finding that the penalty and suspension had been applied erroneously. It refunded €1,824: three weeks at €44 and nine weeks at €188. The court noted that Mr Fagan had collected the refund, while also recording his claim that accepting it had been effectively forced on him because it was mixed into his weekly payment.
Justice Faherty found that Seetec had no power to decide whether Mr Fagan’s allowance would be reduced or stopped. Its relevant action was reporting his refusal to sign the PPP to the Department. The court held that Mr Fagan had not shown arguable grounds for judicial review against Seetec.
As to the Department and Appeals Office, the judge found that the refund and reversal had achieved what a successful challenge to the benefit decisions could have achieved, leaving no remaining legal issue on which leave could be granted. Leave was therefore refused. The court did not decide whether the application was brought within the three-month time limit or address the respondents’ other arguments. It also said the alleged assault was outside the court’s function in this application.