The High Court has refused a Romanian citizen’s application for judicial review of a decision refusing him jobseeker’s allowance. Mr Justice Michael White ruled that the applicant had not established the continuous employment required under the relevant provision, and refused the relief sought.
The applicant, aged 56, first came to Ireland in 2007. His employment record included several short periods of paid work between 2007 and 2014, followed by work as a self-employed subcontractor from 17 November to 5 December 2014. He said in an affidavit that he had worked intermittently since 2008 and had relied on charity and family support, including assistance from the Capuchin Day Centre.
His application for jobseeker’s allowance in November 2014 was refused on the basis that he had not worked in Ireland for more than a year, lacked sufficient independent resources and had not shown that Ireland was his centre of interest. A review in December 2014 maintained the refusal. The applicant sought a further review, arguing that his two weeks’ employment in July 2014 meant he retained worker status and a right to reside for at least six months under EU law. The Department’s letter of 31 March 2015 again refused the claim.
The judge held that the March 2015 review decision was capable of challenge by judicial review, rejecting the respondent’s argument that the applicant had failed to challenge the original November 2014 decision in time. The court also accepted that short, casual or part-time work may count as worker activity if it is effective and genuine rather than marginal. Whether unemployment after a fixed-term contract is voluntary or involuntary is a factual matter for the trial court.
But the judge concluded that the applicant’s July 2014 work for Marren Brothers Limited was casual and infrequent, and could not be treated as a fixed-term employment contract. The provision relied on by the applicant concerned people who completed a fixed-term contract of less than a year, or became involuntarily unemployed during the first year in the circumstances set out in that provision. The court held that the latter wording did not stand alone.
The applicant therefore had to meet the separate requirement of having been employed for more than one year. As he had not established continuous employment for a year before applying for assistance, the refusal was correct. The court refused the judicial-review relief; it did not quash the decision or remit the matter for reconsideration.