Healy v Eastern Health Board & Min Health & Ac
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Keane J. |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1988 |
| Neutral Citation | 1988 WJSC-HC 1288 |
| Docket Number | 264 JR/87 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 11 March 1988 |
BETWEEN:
and
1988 WJSC-HC 1288
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
SOCIAL SERVICES
Welfare
Benefits - Entitlement - Disability - Disabled wife - Wife's maintenance allowance - Reduction - Allowance reduced because of husband's unemployment assistance - Husband's assistance not connected with wife - Reduction not authorised - Constitution - Protection of marriage - The applicants were a married couple who had two children, aged 12 and 11 years - The wife was disabled and the husband was unemployed - From 31/12/85 the husband received unemployment assistance under the Act of 1981 with increases in respect of an adult dependant and in respect of two child dependants; in November, 1986, the husband's total weekly assistance under the Act of 1981 was #79.90 - In November, 1986, the wife was receiving from the respondent Board #7.33 weekly as the maintenance allowance of a disabled person under the Act of 1970 and, therefore, the applicants at that time were receiving a total weekly income of #87.23 - In November, 1986, the wife ceased to be an adult dependant of her husband for the purposes of the social welfare code by reason of the Act of 1985, which implemented an EEC directive requiring equal treatment for men and women in the field of social security - The husband's weekly unemployment assistance was reduced to #44.80 but it was later increased by various means to #76.70 - On 9/6/87 the wife was informed that on 19th June her maintenance allowance as a disabled person would cease - On 12/8/87 the applicants obtained leave to apply in the High Court for an order of certiorari quashing the respondents” decision to stop paying the wife her maintenance allowance as a disabled person - By article 3(4) of the Regulations of 1984 and the third schedule thereto, the maintenance allowance payable to a disabled person in accordance with the article is stated to be a weekly allowance not exceeding the personal rate of the allowance specified in that schedule, with increases for dependants not exceeding the amounts specified in that schedule - The said schedule specifies a personal rate of #44.50, an amount of #25.30 in respect of an adult dependant, an amount of #8.60 in respect of a first child dependant and an amount of #9.90 in respect of a second child dependant; those sums make a total of #88.30 which is the maximum weekly allowance which could have been paid to the wife in accordance with the said article and schedule if her husband and children had been treated as her dependants and if the maximum amount had been allowed for each of such dependants - At the hearing of the applicants” motion, the respondents submitted that #88.30 was the total of the weekly benefits which the applicants were entitled to receive - The respondents calculated that the husband was entitled to receive #46.20 weekly as unemployment assistance (being the maximum personal sum of #36.60 plus half the allowance in respect of two dependant children or #9.60), and that the wife was entitled prima facie to receive #53.75 weekly (being the maximum personal maintenance allowance of #44.50 for a disabled person, and half of the allowance in respect of two dependant children or #9.25) - The respondents contended that the total weekly sum of #99.95 so calculated (#46.20 plus #53.75) exceeded by #11.65 the maximum permissible weekly sum of #88.30 which could be paid to a disabled person under the said article 3(4) if he had one adult and two child dependants - The respondents submitted that the excess of #11.65 must be deducted from the wife's maintenance allowance as a disable person, and they relied on article 4 of the Regulations of 1984 - The payment of maintenance allowances to disabled persons is governed by s.69 of the Act of 1970 and the regulations made under s.72 of that Act - Article 4 of the Regulations of 1984 provides:- "In determining the amount of maintenance allowance for a particular person, a Health Board shall have regard to the income of that person, the spouse of that person, and of all persons in respect of whom that person claims or is in receipt of an increase specified in the schedules of these regulations. In this regard full account shall be taken of all income arising by way of benefit or assistance or any increase thereof in respect of a dependant, other than supplementary welfare allowance which is payable under the Social Welfare Acts, 1981 to 1983" - For the purpose of determining the rate of unemployment assistance payable under the Social Welfare Acts, 1981 to 1985, the term "adult dependant" is defined by s.3 of the Act of 1985 as meaning a spouse who is wholly or mainly maintained by that person but does not include a spouse "who is entitled to, or is in receipt of, any … disabled person's maintenance allowance under section 69 of the Health Act, 1970" - In effect, the respondents contended that the provisions of article 4 of the Regulations of 1984 entitled them to take full account of the unemployment assistance being received by the claimant wife's spouse and, by doing so, to reduce the amount otherwise payable to the claimant wife by an amount which ensured that the total of the incomes of the claimant wife and her husband did not exceed the maximum weekly allowance payable to a disabled person with an adult dependant and two child dependants under article 3(4) of the Regulations of 1984 - Held that the wife's claim raised the issue of the relevance of a husband's income which consisted solely of social welfare benefits being paid to him in respect of his own needs and the needs of his children - Held that article 4 of the Regulations of 1984 does not authorise account to be taken of income consisting of benefits received by the husband of the claimant as social welfare payments to which he is entitled on his own behalf or on behalf of dependants other than the claimant: ~Murphy v. The Attorney General~ [1982] I.R. 241 and ~Hyland v. Minister for Social Welfare~ (Barrington J. - 18/1/88) considered - Held that the court would declare that the claimant wife was entitled to a disabled person's maintenance allowance consisting of the maximum personal rate plus half of the amounts specified for two children under 18 years old, that the husband was entitled to unemployment assistance at the maximum personal rate plus half of the amount specified in relation to two dependant children, and that the respondent Board were not entitled to impose a ceiling on the amount of the wife's disability allowance by reference to the personal rate of the husband's unemployment assistance or the additional assistance to which he was entitled in respect of his two dependant children - Held that the applicants were entitled to damages in respect of underpayments established by the decision of the court - Disabled Persons (Maintenance Allowances) Regulations, 1984, articles 3, 4 - Disabled Persons (Maintenance Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations, 1987 - Health Act, 1970, ss.69, 72 - Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 - Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985, s.3 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 41 - (1987/264 JR - Keane J. - 11/3/88) - [1988] I.R. 747
|Healy v. Eastern Health Board|
CONSTITUTION
Family
Protection - Social welfare - Benefits - Disabled wife - Maintenance allowance - Reduction - Income of husband taken into account - Husband's income consisting of social welfare payments - Statutory provision not applicable to unmarried couple - ~See~ Social Services, welfare - (1987/264 JR - Keane J. - 11/3/88)
|Healy v. Eastern Health Board|
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Instrument
Welfare - Benefits - Entitlement - Disability - Disabled wife - Maintenance allowance - Reduction - Allowance reduced because of husband's unemployment assistance - Husband's benefits unconnected with wife - Statutory instrument directed that assessor of wife's allowance should "have regard to", and take full account of, the husband's income - ~See~ Social Services, welfare - (1987/264 JR - Keane J. - 11/3/88) - [1988] I.R. 747
|Healy v. Eastern Health Board|
Citations:
HEALTH ACT 1967 S69
HEALTH ACT 1967 S72
DISABLED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES) REG 1984 SI 71/1984
DISABLED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES)(AMDT) REGS 1987 SI 196/1987
DISABLED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE) REG 1984 SI 71/1984 ART 3(1)
DISABLED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE) REG 1984 SI 71/1984 ART 3(4)
DISABLED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE) REG 1984 SI 71/1984 ART 4
SOCIAL WELFARE (NO.2) ACT 1985 S3
CONSTITUTION ART 41.3.1
MURPHY V AG 1982 IR 241
HYLAND V MIN SOCIAL WELFARE & AG 1989 ILRM 196
EEC DIR 79/7 ART 4
MCDERMOTT & COTTER V MIN SOCIAL WELFARE & AG 1987 ILRM 324
JOHNSTON V CHIEF CONSTABLE RUC 1986 3 CMLR 240
DRAKE V CHIEF ADJUDICATION OFFICER 1986 3 CMLR 43, 1986 3 AER 65
TEULING-WORMS V BESTWUR VAN DE BEDRIJFSVERENIGING WOR DE CHEMISCHE INDUSTRIE 11.06.87
SOCIAL WELFARE (NO 2) ACT 1985
CONSTITUTION 43.1.3
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The applicants are a married couple and have two children, aged twelve and eleven. The husband formerly worked in the VEHA factory in Wicklow. In February 1982 he was injured at work and stopped working for some years. He was certified fit for work in November 1985 and received unemployment benefit under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act1981for approximately three weeks. From December 31st 1985 he was in receipt of unemployment assistance under the 1981 Act together with an increase in respect of an adult dependent and two child dependents at the standard rate applicable. In November 1986, the total benefit payable to him under the 1981 Act was £79.90 per week.
The wife has been suffering from schizophrenia and a reactive...
To continue reading
Request your trial