The High Court has refused a Romanian grandmother’s challenge to the refusal of carer’s allowance, finding she had not established a right to reside in Ireland when she applied in early 2022. The judgment was delivered electronically by Mr Justice Barr on 22 August 2025. The court’s proposed order refuses the relief she sought; it also continues a publication restriction protecting the identity of the children. Final orders and costs were left for later submissions and a court mention.
The applicant moved to Dublin with her husband in September 2021 to help care for her daughter’s two children, who have serious special needs. The Department accepted that she provided 35 hours of care a week, that the children met the statutory care threshold and that she met the means test. Her application was refused because she was found not to be habitually resident in Ireland, which the decision-makers linked to her lack of a right to reside.
The grandmother argued that the care she provided in return for accommodation, board and expenses made her a “worker” under EU law. Mr Justice Barr accepted that EU law’s worker concept is broad and that remuneration can be provided in kind. But he found no evidence of an employment relationship or economic activity: the care was voluntary, there was no contractual duty, and she was free to stop. The court held that the Irish regulations had properly transposed the relevant EU rules and refused her request to refer the worker question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The court also rejected her alternative argument that she qualified as an economically inactive person with sufficient resources. It held that carer’s allowance forms part of Ireland’s social assistance system and is subject to the unreasonable-burden assessment. The applicant’s resources had been assessed as zero, and the court found that support from her daughter and son-in-law was voluntary, could be withdrawn and did not count as her resources. It also noted that she had provided no evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance, another requirement for that route to residence.
The court rejected arguments based on the applicant’s daughter’s status as a worker and found that the appeals officer’s review decision gave adequate reasons. It also dismissed the respondents’ objection that the judicial review should fail because the applicant had not pursued further statutory review or an appeal on a point of law. The proceedings were not moot despite her return to Romania in May 2024: if she had succeeded, the matter could have been reconsidered for the period before her departure, potentially leading to arrears.
The judgment records the judge’s view that the outcome was harsh, while concluding that the statutory eligibility rules had been applied. The proposed final order refuses the reliefs sought and continues the restriction on publication of anything that could identify the children. Written submissions on final-order terms and costs were due by 3 October 2025, with a mention listed for 15 October 2025.