The High Court has dismissed an appeal by an anonymised former resident against the refusal of a grant for medical services, affirming the Appeals Officer’s decision under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund scheme.
The appellant had applied in April 2017 for help with, among other things, medical expenses. The application was refused in June 2017 because the appellant had already received benefits worth about €40,000, above the €15,000 limit introduced by the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board in 2016. The appeal to the Appeals Officer was dismissed in January 2018.
The appellant argued that the cap was unlawful, including because it frustrated legitimate expectations based on earlier successful applications, operated retrospectively and failed to account for individual circumstances. The Board maintained that the cap was lawful and intended to preserve funds so other eligible former residents would have a fair opportunity to apply.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the Appeals Officer had to apply the Board’s published criteria when deciding an appeal. He also found that the 2012 Act authorised the Board to set limits on grants and services, and that the overall €15,000 cap fell within that discretion. The court accepted the Board’s stated concern that the finite fund could be depleted before all eligible applicants had an opportunity to apply.
The judge rejected the appellant’s arguments about legitimate expectations and retrospective effect. Earlier applications had been decided before the revised criteria were published in June 2016; the application at issue was made in April 2017. The judgment said former residents had a right to have applications considered, but no substantive entitlement to receive a benefit. The appellant could retain amounts already received; the Board was not seeking repayment of sums above the cap.
The court noted that a challenge to the validity of the Board’s criteria would ordinarily be brought through judicial review, rather than a statutory appeal against an Appeals Officer. It nevertheless addressed the issue in this case, which the parties presented as a test case, and cautioned that future courts need not take the same approach.
The appeal was dismissed and the Appeals Officer’s refusal of the medical services grant was affirmed. The court also discharged a stay that had restrained the Board from reducing its funds below €12,000 while the proceedings were pending. The judge reserved the question of legal costs for a later hearing.