Oral hearing was not necessary to fairly dispose of social welfare appeal

Tax – judicial review – challenge to the decision upholding a decision of a deciding officer under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) that the applicant repay the sum of €54,184.10, in circumstances where it was held she had an entitlement to a lower rate of carer’s allowance from 2014 to 2018 and no entitlement to carer’s allowance from 2018 to 2019 - appeals officer ought to have directed an oral hearing prior to determining the appeal but failed to do so - appeals officer did not err in fact or law in deciding that no oral hearing was required - the test is whether an oral hearing was necessary to fairly dispose of the appeal - applicant failed to identify any conflict either of fact or law which would have necessitated an oral hearing, or any issues requiring to be resolved by an oral hearing, there was no unfairness in making the decision on the papers before the appeals officer - applicant ought not to have proceeded by way of judicial review where she had an alternative appeal mechanism open to her – background facts - decision of appeals officer – proceedings – relevant legislation – case law – alleged necessity of oral hearing to dispose fairly of the appeal - cause of overpayment - respondents had ample material to conclude that the applicant was aware of her obligations - the kind of conflict alleged did not arise - e appeals officer was entitled to rely on the material provided to him by the deciding officer and to conclude that the appellant was aware that earnings and changes in circumstances had a direct effect on the rate of allowance - the decision not to direct repayment of a lesser amount to be repaid cannot be used as the basis to argue for an oral hearing in circumstances where no evidence was put before the second respondent as to why a lesser amount should be imposed – failed to identify any controversy in this respect requiring an oral hearing - mandatory entitlement to oral hearing - oral hearing is only required if the case cannot be determined without an oral hearing - appellant is not entitled to indicate that they will hold off on placing material that might suggest a conflict until the oral hearing itself - no legal flaw in the decision of the appeals officer to decide this appeal could be disposed of fairly without an oral hearing - decision on oral hearing two stage process – lack of reasons – not pleaded – alternative remedies – affidavit evidence – judicial review refused.