Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Social welfare appeals process provides adequate remedy
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses an application for leave to apply for judicial review, determining that the statutory right to seek a revision of an appeals officer's decision is an adequate alternative remedy. The case involved a claim for domiciliary care allowance, where the applicant challenged the decision-making process after her application was denied. The court found that the applicant could request a revision of the decision, including the option for an oral hearing, to address any inconsistencies or procedural unfairness alleged. The court also declined to consider a challenge to the validity of article 10 of the Social Welfare (Appeals) Regulations 1998, emphasising the principle of judicial self-restraint and the existence of alternative remedies.
Jdicial review, domiciliary care allowance, Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, revision, appeals officer, procedural fairness, oral hearing, Social Welfare (Appeals) Regulations 1998, alternative remedy, judicial self-restraint, High Court, administrative tribunal, constitutionality, fair procedures.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
