Court of Appeal allows appeal in part and grants two declarations in judicial review proceedings challenging a decision not to reopen the appellant's claim for Jobseekers Allowance as she had not provided evidence that she lived in the catchment area of the centre managing her claim, on the grounds that: (a) the consequences of where a homeless person is to apply for Jobseekers Allowance are of such significance that they point to an overriding interest of justice that requires there to be a decision on this point, even if issues in the present case were moot; (b) imposing a requirement of proof of current residence in a particular catchment area for a person who was known to be homeless as a precondition to making an application for Jobseekers Allowance was ultra vires the powers conferred on the Minister in the legislation; and (c) the trial judge erred in so far as he appeared to decide that even in the case of homeless applicants it is not unreasonable for there to be a requirement of residence in a particular catchment area.
Haughton J (nem diss): Judicial review - Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005 - Appeal of a decision of the High Court refusing to grant an order of certiorari of a decision of the respondent to close and not reopen the appellant's application for Jobseekers Allowance as she failed to provide evidence that she was living in the catchment area - appellant was a Latvian woman and EU citizen who took up employment in the State - appellant was initially in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance - the appellant lost her Jobseekers Allowance when she failed to provide certain work dockets from her employer to the respondent - appellant became homeless - when the appellant reapplied later that year she was ultimately advised by the Area Manager that her claim could not be reopened as she did not provide proof that she was living in the catchment area - following the institution of judicial review proceedings, the appellant's claim was processed and a payment of €2,450.20 was made to her which included "back pay" - whether the claim was moot - the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof for any claim to damages for unpaid arrears of Jobseekers Allowance or consequential financial loss and therefore her claim for damages could not succeed - whether the appellant was entitled to damages - appellant could not obtain damages as she had failed to quantify the amount of money she alleged was due and owing - whether the respondent acted ultra vires in requiring the appellant in applying for Jobseekers Allowance while homeless to provide evidence that she was “currently residing” in a particular Intreo Centre catchment area - whether the respondent acted unlawfully n failing to have in place or publicise any or any appropriate process for inviting, making, receiving and determining applications for Job Seekers Allowance from a homeless person such as the appellant - appeal allowed in part - damages refused - declarations granted.