Background
Jamie Lordan brought judicial review proceedings challenging a decision that he was not entitled to disability allowance under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 while he was in lawful custody.
On 17 December 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. It held that his incarceration disentitled him to disability allowance and that he had shown no breach of Article 40.1 of the Constitution or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court distinguished PC v Minister for Social Protection [2017] IESC 63, which concerned a contributory pension that remained payable during imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
This ruling concerned costs only. Although the respondents had been entirely successful on the appeal, the Court of Appeal made no order as to costs.
The Court accepted that the case raised an issue of general public importance. It had been presented as a test case, with other cases awaiting its outcome, and the ruling clarified the issue for the respondents while avoiding the costs of litigating those further cases. There was also a significant legal issue given the Supreme Court’s decision in PC, notwithstanding that Lordan had sought a personal benefit.
Key Takeaways
- A successful State respondent will not automatically receive costs where a test case raises a significant issue of public importance.
- The Court treated the clarification of the entitlement issue for related pending cases as relevant to costs.
- The underlying appeal remained unsuccessful: imprisonment disentitled Lordan to disability allowance on the facts before the Court.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court of Appeal’s willingness to depart from the usual costs outcome in public-interest litigation, even where the claimant sought an individual entitlement. It also confirms that the Court viewed the disability-allowance question as materially different from the contributory-pension issue considered in PC.