The High Court refuses an application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning a decision on domiciliary care allowance, primarily on the grounds that the application was made outside the three-month time limit without sufficient reason for the delay. Additionally, the court found that the statutory right to seek a "revision" of the appeals officer's decision under statute provided an adequate alternative remedy. The court emphasised that the applicant's grievances could be fully addressed through this revision process, negating the need for judicial review. The original decision to deny the domiciliary care allowance was based on the assessment that the child's care requirements did not meet the legislative criteria for the allowance.
Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Adequate Alternative Remedy, Domiciliary Care Allowance, Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, Revision of Appeals Officer's Decision, Medical Assessor's Opinion, Fair Procedures, Duty to Give Reasons, Order 84 Rule 21 RSC, High Court, Statutory Appeal, Public Policy, Timeliness.