High Court refuses to grant an extension of time for a judicial review application challenging the cessation of the applicant's COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP). The applicant, who was in receipt of a part-time income, sought to be treated similarly to self-employed individuals under the PUP scheme. The court found that the applicant's personal and professional commitments, while significant, did not provide an exceptional reason to warrant the six-week delay in seeking judicial review beyond the statutory three-month limit. Consequently, the court did not address the substantive grounds of the appeal or the respondent's procedural point regarding an alternative remedy. The respondent was deemed entitled to costs, and the court scheduled a mention for final orders, including costs.
Judicial Review, Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP), Extension of Time, Order 84 RSC, Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, Fair Procedure, Alternative Remedy, Statutory Time Limit, Work-Life Balance, Parental Responsibilities, Legal Representation, Costs.