L.A. v The Chief Appeals Officer & Ors - Social Welfare Appeal

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >>

  L.A. v The Chief Appeals Officer & Ors (Approved) [2026] IESC 22 (25 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2026/2026IESC22WoulfeJ.html | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

*A black and white image of a harp

AI-generated content may be incorrect.*

AN CH?IRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

Record No. 2025/80

[2026] IESC 22

O'Donnell C.J.

Charleton J.

Woulfe J.

Murray J.

Donnelly J.

---

BETWEEN/

LACRAMIOARA AMARIEI

---

Appellant/Applicant

-and-

THE CHIEF APPEALS OFFICER, THE SOCIAL WELFARE APPEALS OFFICE AND THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION

Respondent

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Woulfe delivered on the 25 th March, 2026

---

1. I have had the benefit of reading a draft of the judgment which Donnelly J. proposes to deliver herein, and I am happy to gratefully adopt the comprehensive account of the facts, and also the comprehensive account of the proceedings in the Courts below, contained in her judgment.

2. I agree with the principles governing the issue of whether there is an alternative appropriate remedy as set out by Donnelly J. in her judgment, and with her ultimate decision in this appeal.? However, I disagree on one aspect of her application of those principles to the facts of the present case.

3. In Castleisland Cattle Breeding Society Ltd v. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs [2004] 4 IR 150 (" Castleisland "), Geoghegan J. stated that s. 271 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993 (the "1993 Act"), now s. 327 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005 (the "2005 Act"), did not provide for an appeal from the refusal of the Chief Appeals Officer to revise a decision of an Appeals Officer under s. 263 of the 1993 Act (now s. 318 of the 2005 Act).?

4. In her judgment Donnelly J. sets out cogent arguments as to why the dicta of Geoghegan J. concerning the right of appeal from a s. 263 (now s. 318) revised decision of the Chief Appeals Officer may be considered obiter.? However, whether obiter or not, the fact is that the 2005 Act was amended in 2010 to insert a new s. 327A to permit the Minister to also appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Chief Appeals Officer pursuant to s. 318 of the 2005 Act.? Significantly, it seems it to me, the new provision treated a revised decision of the Chief Appeals Officer pursuant to s. 318 as being only a positive decision to revise a decision of an Appeals Officer, and drew an express distinction between such a revised decision and a decision of the Chief Appeals Officer "not to revise" a decision of an Appeals Officer, in line with the distinction drawn by Geoghegan J. in Castleisland.? ?

5. In her judgment Donnelly J. states (at para. 131) that she does not think that the amendment to the 2005 Act making specific the Minister's right to appeal both the making of a revised decision and the refusal to make a decision has had any effect on the position, and that all the amendment provides for is clarity where there may have been some lack of clarity previously due to the decision in Castleisland.??

6. I regret that I cannot agree with this view of the absence of any effect of the 2010 legislative amendment.? It seems to me clear that the intention of the Oireachtas was to adopt in legislative form the interpretation of a "revised decision" of the Chief Appeals Officer under the predecessor to s. 327, as set out by Geoghegan J. in Castleisland, whether obiter or not.? In effect, the enactment of s. 327A amounted to a legislative imprimatur of that judicial interpretation.

7. At para. 130 of her judgment, Donnelly J. expresses her view that the logic of this Court's decision in McDonagh v. Chief Appeals Officer [2021] 1 ILRM 385 (" McDonagh ") (which concerned the similar, but wider, provision in s. 301 of the 2005 Act regarding a revision decision by a Deciding Officer) also points towards interpreting s. 318 in a manner which would permit an appeal against both the refusal to revise and a decision to revise.? With respect, I do not think that this is so, for the following reasons.

8. Firstly, the wording of the relevant provision regarding an appeal in McDonagh, i.e. s. 311 of the 2005 Act, refers to "the decision" as opposed to "the revised decision".? In her judgment for the Court, Dunne J. stated (at para. 73) that, presumably, the similar distinction drawn in s. 327 itself between "a decision" and "a revised decision" must have some meaning.

9.??Secondly, I do not think that any such logic of the decision in McDonagh could outweigh the express language employed by the Oireachtas in enacting s. 327A subsequent to Castleisland, language which was described by Dunne J. in McDonagh (at para. 73) as "interesting to note".?

10. The consequence of my interpretation of s. 327 is as set out by Donnelly J. at para. 130, i.e. that if a claimant sought a revision by the Chief Appeals Officer of a decision of an Appeals Officer pursuant to s. 318, and the Chief Appeals Officer does not revise that decision, then the claimant would have no statutory appeal under s. 327 available.? As noted by Donnelly J., it would of course be open to a claimant to appeal the original decision of the Appeals Officer, but as the time may have expired an extension of time would be necessary.? However, it may well be, as Donnelly J. suggests (at para. 130), that the justice of the situation would demand such an extension of time for such an appeal.?

11. The question then arises as to whether the above procedural complication, surrounding the interaction between the operation of s. 318 and s. 327, means that s. 318 is not an adequate alternative remedy to which a Court hearing a judicial review must have regard.? On balance, I do not consider that this is so.? I think the advantages of the s. 318 remedy, as set out by Donnelly J. in her judgment, greatly outweigh the potential procedural complication, whereby an extension of time could be required to appeal a decision of an Appeals Officer following a decision of the Chief Appeals Officer not to revise the Appeals Officer's decision.? Overall, I am also satisfied that an application to revise under s. 318 was an adequate alternative remedy of which this appellant ought to have availed.

12. I would therefore also dismiss the appeal.?

Result:     Dismiss

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2026/2026IESC22WoulfeJ.html