The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the Chief Appeals Officer, the Social Welfare Appeals Officer and the Minister for Social Protection, setting aside the High Court order and dismissing L.A.’s judicial review proceedings. The court held that a statutory review route could address her complaints about the refusal of Disability Allowance. It has not yet decided costs.
L.A. applied for the allowance on 6 April 2022. A Deciding Officer refused the application on 14 June, finding that she did not meet the medical eligibility test and that her means, assessed together with her spouse’s income, exceeded the applicable threshold. An Appeals Officer disallowed her appeal in September 2022, relying on both the means assessment and the medical evidence. After reviewing the decision under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, the Appeals Officer maintained it in December 2022.
The High Court later found that the Appeals Officer had erred in assessing L.A.’s means because he had not taken account of her separation from her spouse during the year following her application. It remitted that issue for reconsideration. The High Court found the medical eligibility decision was properly reasoned and one a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
On appeal, the public bodies argued that L.A. should have pursued available statutory procedures instead of judicial review. The Court of Appeal focused on section 318, which allows the Chief Appeals Officer to revise an Appeals Officer’s decision at any time where it appears to have been affected by a mistake of law or fact. The court said that power was broad enough to address both L.A.’s complaints about the forward-looking assessment of her means and her criticisms of the medical assessment.
The judgment clarified that claimants are not legally obliged to seek a section 318 review. They may also appeal to the High Court on a question of law under section 327. But when deciding whether judicial review is appropriate, a court must consider whether another available procedure offers an equally or more effective remedy. The High Court had erred by not considering that question, the Court of Appeal held.
The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the High Court order and dismissed the proceedings. It did not determine the underlying complaints about the means or medical assessments. It directed the appellants to file written submissions on costs within 14 days, with the respondent allowed a further 14 days to reply.