The High Court found that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs breached one student’s legitimate expectation by ending Back to Education Allowance payments during university summer holidays. It declared the change contrary to that expectation and found the student entitled to restitution, but did not quash the decision or grant an injunction. The court said it would hear counsel on the amount and final form of the order.
The judicial review challenged a change that took effect from summer 2003. The allowance scheme’s June 2002 booklet said payments would continue for the course, including holiday periods, and that recipients could work without affecting their payment. The first applicant said those terms helped persuade him to return to university and that he relied on the summer payments.
The Minister notified him in March 2003 that the allowance would not be paid during the summer holiday between academic years. The judgment records that the first applicant campaigned for the change to be reversed before seeking legal advice. Leave to bring judicial review was granted on 23 February 2004.
The five named students and 173 people added to the case claimed they had a legitimate expectation that the scheme’s terms would continue while they studied. The judge found the first applicant had adequately explained the delay through his campaign and efforts to secure a change. But there was no comparable evidence about the other applicants’ individual circumstances or steps taken. They were therefore debarred from relief on the time and evidential issues.
On the merits, the judge treated the scheme as administrative and non-statutory. He found the booklet’s promise clear and the first applicant’s reliance reasonable. The Minister relied on budgetary constraints, but the evidence did not establish a sufficient overriding public interest to justify withdrawing the benefit from students already admitted to the scheme. The finding concerned the first applicant; the court did not grant relief to the remaining applicants.
The court also limited the remedy because the first applicant had not sought interim relief in 2003. He worked during that summer and was said to have sustained a loss of €4,200.51. He received unemployment benefit during the summers of 2004 and 2005, and had mortgaged his home again to continue his studies. The court held that his delay barred certiorari, prohibition and an injunction. It instead declared that the change was contrary to his legitimate expectation and found him entitled to be restored to the financial position he would have been in had the decision not been made. The amount and final form of restitution remained for further submissions.