The Supreme Court allowed Martin Maher’s appeal on whether he had exhausted his remedies under social welfare legislation and remitted his case to the Chief Appeals Officer for a full review. It did not decide whether Maher was entitled to disability benefit or quash the earlier benefit decisions.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 9 April 2008, concerned the withdrawal of Maher’s disability benefit from 8 December 1999. A deciding officer had concluded he was capable of work after a medical assessment. An appeals officer rejected his appeal, finding that although his back condition limited him, a significant range of employment remained open to him.
Maher sought judicial review, arguing that the process was unfair. He said he had not been given a chance to respond before the benefit was stopped and raised concerns about non-medical questions asked at an assessment, including about his pension and personal injury proceedings against his employer. He also challenged the appeal hearing’s reliance on written medical reports without the assessors attending to give evidence.
The Minister denied that the officials had acted unfairly. The Minister argued that Maher had not exhausted the review route under section 263 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, which allows the Chief Appeals Officer to revise an appeals officer’s decision for an error of fact or law.
The High Court dismissed Maher’s judicial review motion, including on the basis that he appeared not to have used that statutory route. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that information supplied by the appeals office did not adequately explain how to seek a review by the Chief Appeals Officer. Denham J. said that, in the circumstances, section 263 should not be used against Maher as a bar to his case.
The Court directed that the Chief Appeals Officer review the situation fairly, with all relevant material, including material Maher wishes to submit. It said new medical assessments may be needed because of the time elapsed, and that any medical assessments should be limited to medical issues; broader issues were for the Chief Appeals Officer. The Court’s order addressed the review procedure. It did not itself restore benefit payments or determine the outcome of the review.