The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal brought by B.M. and her minor son, J.M., in proceedings against the Chief Appeals Officer and other State respondents. In a separate judgment delivered on 12 November 2024, Mr Justice Woulfe agreed with the dismissal and added comments on Article 41.2 of the Constitution.
Justice Woulfe said the decision in O’Meara v Minister for Social Protection [2024] IESC 1 meant that only married women could rely on Article 41.2.1, and only married mothers on Article 41.2.2. He said that, on this interpretation, the first applicant could not rely on Article 41.2 because she was not married.
That was Justice Woulfe’s view of the implications of O’Meara, not a question decided in this appeal. He noted that the State respondents had not previously contested the applicants’ entitlement in principle to rely on Article 41.2, and reserved their position on its personal scope for a case where the issue would determine the outcome. They also said this case was not an appropriate one to decide the question.
The judgment records that Collins J. considered it appropriate to proceed on the assumed premise that the applicants could rely on Article 41.2, because the issue had not been argued in the High Court or on appeal. Justice Woulfe said he found that approach unsatisfactory, as it risked obscuring what he described as the constitutional position. He said the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal to clarify issues of general public importance, including Article 41.2, and that its scope was an important issue left unclear by the decision.
Justice Woulfe’s judgment does not set out the underlying dispute or the reasons for dismissing the appeal; he referred readers to Collins J.’s judgment. The source provided here contains Woulfe J.’s additional comments only.