The Court of Appeal cancelled a direction issued to Chubb European Group SE by the Health Insurance Authority (HIA), finding that the enforcement notice did not properly specify a breach of the Health Insurance Act 1994. The court dismissed Chubb’s separate appeal in judicial review proceedings.
The dispute concerned Chubb’s MediCover policy for non-EEA students studying in Ireland. HIA’s position was that students attending courses lasting more than one academic year are ordinarily resident in the State. It said Chubb was therefore carrying on health insurance business and had to register under the Act. The 20 March 2017 notice directed Chubb to restrict the policy to students attending courses of no more than one academic year, or register as an undertaking.
Chubb challenged the notice through a statutory application seeking cancellation of its direction and through judicial review. The High Court rejected its challenges. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with HIA on the meaning of ordinary residence: a student who comes to Ireland to undertake a course lasting more than a year may be ordinarily resident here because education can be a settled purpose. The court said that status can be assessed for a group sharing that common circumstance; an individualised inquiry into every student’s personal situation was not required in principle.
But the court found a defect in the March 2017 notice. It described the “matter occasioning the contravention” as Chubb selling a policy that lacked a restriction to students taking courses of no more than one academic year. That identified a policy term HIA considered necessary, rather than clearly stating the alleged breach itself. The court said selling a policy without that term was not, by itself, a breach of the Act. The alleged breach was carrying on health insurance business by insuring people who were ordinarily resident in the State.
The court therefore allowed the statutory appeal to the limited extent of cancelling the direction under section 18C. It said HIA remained entitled to issue a further, properly framed enforcement notice. The court did not decide whether students on shorter courses were ordinarily resident; that question was not before it.
Chubb also argued that HIA’s silence after correspondence in 2011 created a legitimate expectation that it could continue selling the policy without registering. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It found no representation or settled practice by HIA that could support the claimed expectation. The judicial review appeal was dismissed.