Mother fails in appeal over Dept of Social Protection's refusal of care allowance for daughter

A mother who was refused a care allowance for her daughter who has a number of disorders was not entitled to appeal the refusal years later, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Mother fails in appeal over Dept of Social Protection's refusal of care allowance for daughter

A mother who was refused a care allowance for her daughter who has a number of disorders was not entitled to appeal the refusal years later, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The child has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and borderline Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

Her mother is her primary carer. In 2011 she applied to the Department of Social Protection for the domiciliary care allowance which is payable where a child has a severe disability requiring continuous care and attention substantially in excess of what is normally required.

In September 2011, a deciding officer refused to approve her application. The mother did not appeal the decision even though she would have been entitled to do so under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.

Four-and-a-half years later, she applied on three occasions for a revision of the deciding officer's 2011 decision. She was refused on each occasion.

She then sought to appeal the 2011 decision to the Department's chief appeals officer who told her she was out of time for doing so.

She then brought a High Court challenge over that refusal against the Minister for Social Protection and the chief appeals officer. In 2018, the High Court rejected the challenge.

She appealed to the Court of Appeal which today dismissed her appeal.

Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, on behalf of the three-judge appeal court, said the High Court did not err in finding there was no absurdity in providing for a system of appeal in which that right to appeal is limited to the original decision of 2011.

She also did not accept submissions on behalf of the woman that where new evidence was presented, and where there then is a refusal to revise the original decision, this was appealable. That decision remained unrevised and therefore unappealable, she said.

The court made no order as to costs given the systemic importance of the issues raised in the case. This means both sides pay their own costs.

more courts articles

Gary Glitter victim seeking six-figure sum in damages, court told Gary Glitter victim seeking six-figure sum in damages, court told
Man (25) in court charged with murdering his father and attempted murder of mother Man (25) in court charged with murdering his father and attempted murder of mother
Man appears in court charged with false imprisonment of woman in van Man appears in court charged with false imprisonment of woman in van

More in this section

Record level of children and adults in emergency accommodation Record level of children and adults in emergency accommodation
'Very high likelihood' of further cyberattacks on Irish IT systems 'Very high likelihood' of further cyberattacks on Irish IT systems
Pile or group of multi colored and different sizes of colourful foil wrapped chocolate easter eggs in pink, blue, and gold. Larg Young sisters donate hundreds of Easter eggs to children's hospital
War_map
Cookie Policy Privacy Policy Brand Safety FAQ Help Contact Us Terms and Conditions

© Examiner Echo Group Limited