Jones v Chief Appeals Officer & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 581 (09 October 2024)

Jones v Chief Appeals Officer & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 581 (09 October 2024)

The applicant's busy personal and professional life did not constitute good and sufficient reason to extend the statutory time limit for judicial review. The demands cited were not exceptional and did not distinguish his case from other litigants. The application for extension of time was refused.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 581
Parties
Applicant: Fintan Jones; Respondents: Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Certiorari and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Pandemic Unemployment Payment, Alternative Remedy
Administrative Law Social Welfare Law Extension of Time Judicial Review Pandemic Unemployment Payment Alternative Remedy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fintan Jones

Applicant

Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Certiorari and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient reason for extension of time under Order 84
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was required to exhaust alternative statutory remedies before seeking judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's busy personal and professional life did not constitute good and sufficient reason to extend the statutory time limit for judicial review. The demands cited were not exceptional and did not distinguish his case from other litigants. The application for extension of time was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Matter adjourned for mention for final orders including costs