L.A v The Chief Appeals Officer and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Anthony M. Collins
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 54
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/236

Between/

L.A.

Applicant/Respondent

and

The Chief Appeals Officer, The Social Welfare Appeals Officer and The Minister for Social Protection

Respondents/Appellants

[2025] IECA 54

Meenan J.

Hyland J.

Collins J.

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/236

High Court Record Number: 2023/216/JR

AN CHÚIRT ACHOMHAIRC

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Disability allowance – Judicial review – Alternative remedies – Respondent seeking relief by way of judicial review – Whether the respondent had exhausted the alternative remedies available to her

Facts: The respondent applied to the Department of Social Protection for a Disability Allowance under Part 3, Chapter 10 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The Deciding Officer refused the respondent’s application. The respondent appealed that decision. An Appeals Officer disallowed the respondent’s appeal. The respondent sought a review of that decision. The Appeals Officer stated that he remained of the view that the decision both as to the amount of the respondent’s means and her medical eligibility should stand, and disallowed her appeal. The High Court granted the respondent leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash that decision and an order to remit the respondent’s review application for further consideration by a different Appeals Officer. The High Court declared that the Appeals Officer had erred in law in the manner in which he had determined the respondent’s means, set aside the conclusion reached on that issue and remitted the matter to him for reconsideration in accordance with law. The appellants, the Chief Appeals Officer, the Social Welfare Appeals Officer and the Minister for Social Protection, asked the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment and order, set the latter aside, dismiss the proceedings and order the respondent to pay the costs thereof, or, in the alternative, make no costs order. It was alleged that: (i) the High Court failed to conclude that, because the respondent had not exhausted all of the equally efficacious alternative remedies available to her under ss. 318 and 327 of the 2005 Act, she was not entitled to relief by way of judicial review; (ii) the High Court incorrectly concluded that the Appeals Officer had erred in his assessment of the respondent’s means pursuant to Rule 1(2) of Schedule 3, Part 2 of the 2005 Act; and (iii) the High Court ought not to have quashed the Appeals Officer’s decision in circumstances where the respondent’s application had been refused due to her failure to satisfy the medical eligibility requirements in s. 210(1)(b) of the 2005 Act and not by reference to her means.

Held by Collins J that a claimant who finds himself or herself in circumstances similar to those of the respondent and is dissatisfied with an Appeal Officer’s decision under s. 317(1) of the 2005 Act can elect to seek a review of any mistake of fact and law under s. 318 or to appeal that decision on a question of law to the High Court under s. 327 thereof.

Collins J allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and dismissed the proceedings.

Appeal allowed.

Appearances:

For the Respondents/Appellants: Douglas Clarke SC and Patrick Fitzgerald, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor

For the Applicant/Respondent: Conor Power SC and Joanne Williams, instructed by CSHR Solicitors

APPROVED – NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Anthony M. Collins delivered on the 5 ^th day of March 2025

I. Introduction

1 . Part 10 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended, (“the Act of 2005”) contains a detailed code for the revision of, and appeals against, decisions made thereunder. The Supreme Court (in Petecel v. Minister for Social Protection [2020] IESC 25 and in McDonagh v. Chief Appeals Officer [2021] IESC 33) and this Court (in F.D. v. Chief Appeals Officer [2023] IECA 123) have considered a number of the circumstances in which that code provides an effective remedy, with the consequence that a dissatisfied claimant may be required to exhaust the options it offers instead of seeking to challenge such decisions by way of judicial review. This appeal raises a discrete issue as to the adequacy of the remedy that s. 318 of the Act of 2005 affords to L.A. (‘the respondent’) given the nature of the case that arises from her personal circumstances.

II. Factual Background

2 . On 6 April 2022, the Department of Social Protection received an application from the respondent for a Disability Allowance under Part 3, Chapter 10 of the Act of 2005, supported by reports from her General Practitioner and a radiologist. On 21 April 2022, the Department's Medical Assessor reviewed her application and provided an opinion in accordance with s. 300A(1)(o) of the Act of 2005. In the meantime, ongoing marital difficulties led to the respondent and her husband separating in May 2022. Upon request, in early June 2022, the respondent provided a Deciding Officer in the Department with three payslips referrable to her spouse's earnings and an up-to-date statement of a bank account that she held in her own name.

3 . On 14 June 2022, the Deciding Officer refused the respondent's application, which decision was communicated to her by letter of even date. Having recited the provisions of s. 210(1)(b) of the Act of 2005 and art. 137 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007, as amended, the letter stated that the respondent was not substantially restricted in seeking suitable employment by reason of a specified disability expected to last for a period of at least one year. Whilst the medical evidence demonstrated that the respondent suffered from a level of incapacity, it did not show a substantial restriction that precluded her from taking up work or training and indicated that there was scope for her to retrain for another occupation. By reason of those findings, the respondent was deemed not to meet the requirements for a Disability Allowance laid down in s. 210(1)(b) of the Act of 2005. The letter represented that if the respondent considered that decision was incorrect, she could request a review of the decision by a Deciding Officer and, for that purpose, submit any further documentary evidence in support of her application; appeal the decision to the Chief Appeals Officer; or seek both a review and an appeal of the decision. The letter also assessed the respondent's means as of 6 April 2022 as consisting of income received from her spouse's employment, which brought it above the applicable threshold.

4 . On 23 June 2022, the respondent appealed that decision. On 31 August 2022, a Deciding Officer submitted comments to the Social Welfare Appeals Office on her appeal. By decision of 22 September 2022, communicated to her by letter dated 3 October 2022, an Appeals Officer disallowed the respondent's appeal on two grounds: first, her means as of the date on which she had submitted her application had been correctly assessed together with those of her spouse; second, the respondent had not established, by reference to the medical evidence adduced, that she was substantially restricted from partaking in all types of work for a continuous period of at least one year, with particular reference to what was described as lighter and sedentary types of work.

5 . By email of 25 October 2022, the respondent sought a review of the decision of 22 September 2022 pursuant to s. 317 of the Act of 2005 and submitted affidavit evidence in support. By decision of 12 December 2022, communicated to the respondent by letter dated 21 December 2022, the Appeals Officer, having re-examined all of the evidence before him, stated that he remained of the view that the decision both as to the amount of the respondent's means and her medical eligibility should stand, and disallowed her appeal accordingly.

6 . By order of 15 May 2023, the High Court (Meenan J.) granted the respondent leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of 12 December 2022 and an order to remit the respondent's review application for further consideration by a different Appeals Officer. The grounds upon which the High Court granted leave may be described under two headings. First, the decision was erroneous in law because the Appeals Officer had failed to consider whether developments in the respondent's marriage that post dated her application cast fresh light on her means, and, in particular, had acted unreasonably and irrationally in assessing her means by taking account of those of her spouse. Second, in his assessment of the medical evidence, the Appeals Officer had failed to consider a number of relevant matters, including, but not limited to: the severe effect upon the respondent of the disability from which she suffered; what constituted suitable employment having regard to the respondent's age, experience and qualifications; and the types of lighter and sedentary work that she could have performed.

7 . On 26 July 2023, the appellants caused to have filed a Statement of Opposition in the Central Office of the High Court. In addition to a traverse of the respondent's Statement of Grounds, they pleaded, by way of preliminary objection, that the respondent had failed to exhaust all of the remedies available to her under the Act of 2005 and, in particular, had failed to apply for a revision of the decision of the Appeals Officer of 12 December 2022 to the Chief Appeals Officer pursuant to s. 318 of the said Act, by reason of which the application should be dismissed. It is common case that the determination of this preliminary objection is sufficient to resolve this appeal.

III. High Court Judgment

8 . The application for judicial review came on for hearing before the High Court (Owens J.) on 15 and 21 February 2024 and he delivered a reserved judgment on 28 March 2024 ( [2024] IEHC 187). Paragraphs 14 to...