The High Court has refused an ex parte application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings over the rejection of a claim for domiciliary care allowance, finding that a statutory revision process was an adequate alternative remedy.
The anonymised applicant had applied for the allowance for his daughter in July 2023. At that time, she had been diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder. She was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in August 2024, after the claim had been made.
The original claim was refused in August 2023. The deciding officer accepted that the child needed additional care but said the evidence did not establish that her needs were substantially greater than those of a child of the same age, or that she was likely to require full-time care for at least 12 consecutive months. The applicant appealed. An appeals officer rejected the appeal in May 2024 without an oral hearing, citing the detailed material submitted.
In the judicial review application, the applicant argued that the absence of an oral hearing was unfair. He also complained that he had not been given the Department of Social Protection’s submission to the appeals officer, and said material referred to as “Tab D” remained missing. He later obtained the Department’s submission through a Freedom of Information request.
The High Court said the Department’s submission largely recounted the case history and confirmed that the original decision had not been revised. The judge considered the concern about “Tab D” misplaced: the reference appeared to concern evidence the applicant himself had supplied with the original claim. The court also noted that he had not pursued the available FOI review after being told of that option.
The court held that the applicant’s complaints could be addressed through a request under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to revise the appeals officer’s decision. That process could allow him to seek an oral hearing and explain why he considered one necessary. The leave application was therefore refused. The court did not determine the underlying entitlement to the allowance or decide the substantive fairness challenge.
The judgment also noted that eligibility is assessed by reference to the date of the original application. Because the later autism diagnosis followed that date, the court said a fresh application should be made to rely on a subsequent diagnosis, rather than pursuing an appeal, revision or judicial review of the earlier claim.