The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Deirdre Little over the refusal to revise a decision denying domiciliary care allowance (DCA) for her son, identified in the judgment as J.
The Court held that an appeals officer using the revision power in section 317(1)(a) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 must consider whether the earlier decision was erroneous in light of new evidence or facts about eligibility when the original claim was made. The power does not allow a later change in circumstances to establish entitlement from a subsequent date. A claimant whose circumstances change must make a new claim.
Ms Little’s application was deemed to have been made on 6 June 2018, when J. was five years and two months old. A deciding officer refused it, finding that the evidence did not show he needed substantially more care than a child of the same age. An appeals officer dismissed her appeal in February 2019. Later that year, the appeals officer and then the Chief Appeals Officer declined requests to revise the decision.
An HSE assessment in late 2020 found that J. had a disability under the Disability Act 2005. Ms Little relied on that assessment in seeking another revision in 2021. The appeals officer refused, reasoning that it was current evidence from nearly three years after the claim and did not provide new evidence about J.’s care needs in 2018. The officer said a fresh DCA application could address his current entitlement.
The High Court dismissed Ms Little’s judicial review challenge in December 2022. It held that the decision under review concerned eligibility at the time of the 2018 application and that the later material did not establish legal error in the refusal to revise. The High Court also made a costs order against her, limited to the costs of a one-day hearing.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the revision power and the related costs issue. It dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the 2005 Act required eligibility to be established at the date of the claim and that section 317 concerns whether the original decision was erroneous. The Court said later evidence may support revision if it relates back to eligibility at that time, but later eligibility arising from changed circumstances requires a new claim.
The judgment addresses the legal test for revision. It does not decide whether J. would qualify for DCA on a fresh application.