The High Court has rejected an appeal over the form of a Disability Appeals Officer's recommendation concerning services for a 17-year-old child whose needs have since been reassessed to include autism.
H.J., suing through his mother O.J., was assessed in 2020 as having Developmental Coordination Disorder but not autism. A service statement recommended speech and language therapy, psychology, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, with some start dates extending into 2023.
The family complained about delays. Following earlier litigation and reconsideration, the Disability Appeals Officer ruled in January 2025 that the HSE had failed to explore all possible service providers, particularly private providers with shorter waiting times. She directed that an amended service statement be prepared by April 23, 2025 and that all available service options be considered.
O.J. and H.J. appealed on a point of law. They argued that the officer should instead have made an enforceable recommendation specifying particular services and exact dates.
Ms Justice Nessa Cahill rejected that interpretation of the Disability Act 2005. She held that section 15(8)(f), heavily relied upon by the appellants, applies to Disability Complaints Officers rather than Disability Appeals Officers and is permissive rather than mandatory.
The court also found that the Appeals Officer had discretion under section 18 to vary or set aside a complaints officer's finding and was entitled to remit the matter for a new service statement. That approach was not irrational.
The ruling does not erase the earlier findings of delay or service failure. The court expressly recognised significant and regrettable delays in providing services arising from the 2020 assessment.
However, the child's circumstances had materially changed. A 2024 assessment found that he meets the diagnostic criteria for autism, and a new 2025 service statement moved his care towards a Children's Disability Network Team. The judge questioned the practical benefit of continuing litigation focused only on the older assessment but decided the appeal on its legal merits rather than dismissing it as moot.