O'Connor v Chief Appeals Officer & Anor (Approved) (Rev 1) [2021] IEHC 155 (05 March 2021)

O'Connor v Chief Appeals Officer & Anor (Approved) (Rev 1) [2021] IEHC 155 (05 March 2021)

The Chief Appeals Officer considered all relevant circumstances, including the length of delay and whether good cause was established. No adequate explanation for the delay was provided by the applicant. There was no evidence of fettering of discretion or failure to consider relevant factors. The refusal to accept the late appeal was lawful and reasonable.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 155
Parties
Applicant: Katy O’Connor; First Named Respondent: Chief Appeals Officer (Joan Gordon); Second Named Respondent: Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Exercise of Statutory Discretion, Domiciliary Care Allowance, Fair Procedures, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Social Welfare Law Extension of Time for Appeal Exercise of Statutory Discretion Domiciliary Care Allowance Fair Procedures Natural Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katy O’Connor

Applicant

Chief Appeals Officer (Joan Gordon)

First Named Respondent

Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Appeals Officer failed to exercise discretion fairly or reasonably in refusing to extend time for appeal
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to accept a late appeal was unlawful or in breach of fair procedures and natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Appeals Officer considered all relevant circumstances, including the length of delay and whether good cause was established. No adequate explanation for the delay was provided by the applicant. There was no evidence of fettering of discretion or failure to consider relevant factors. The refusal to accept the late appeal was lawful and reasonable.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • No order quashing the Chief Appeals Officer's decision