Calculated Grades

Elijah Burke v Minister for Education, August 2020

Mr. Justice Meenan ruled that that the refusal by the Minister for Education to provide a calculated grade in circumstances where the applicant is home schooled and the applicant’s teacher is a parent and thus has a conflict of interest is arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and contrary to law. You can read the full judgment here (PDF).

Following the High Court judgment our client ‘s work was assessed and he was awarded a calculated grade for all subjects. The Department of Education appealed the High Court judgment. However it agreed that our client’s grades would be unaffected by the outcome of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In a wide-ranging judgment the Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Meenan’s decision. You can read the full judgment here (PDF).

The Department then appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court and the hearing was set for 12 and 13 October 2021.

Other education cases

Rebecca Carter v Minister for Education, State Examinations Commission, Central Applications Office, (with University College Dublin as a notice party), September 2018

Mr. Justice Humphreys ruled that the effect of an excessively prolonged appeal process is to significantly and disproportionately impact on the quality of the education being received by the student who misses out on the first weeks of their higher level course and who runs the risk of a postponement of their course altogether. He issued an order compelling the SEC to consider and determine the appeal of the applicant and notify the applicant, the CAO and UCD by 12 noon on Friday 28th September, 2018.

Client was awarded a place in her chosen course, veterinary science at University College Dublin. You can read the full judgment here (PDF).

When the State Examinations Commission appealed the judgement it was agreed that the outcome in the Court of Appeal would not affect Ms Carter’s university place. The Court of Appeal overturned Judge Humphrey’s judgment and its decision can be read here (PDF).

Darren Deehan v State Examinations Commission , April 2016

The case concerned a Leaving Certificate student was refused a reader for his Leaving Certificate examinations. You can read the full judgement here (PDF).

Housing

Darren Fagan & Others v Dublin City Council

Our client, a separated father of three children with overnight custody of his children for three nights a week, was classified by Dublin City Council as a “single person” when he was assessed for the HAP payment. The High Court ruled against our client but we appealed to the Supreme Court which overturned the High Court judgment . You can read the full judgment here (PDF).

Zabiello v South Dublin County Council

South Dublin County Council (SDCC) refused an application by a Polish couple to be put on the social housing list as they had sold an apartment they owned in Poland to their son several years previously for €12,000. Judge Simmons ruled that prior ownership of property cannot render a household permanently ineligible for social housing support. You can read the full judgment here (PDF).

Pandemic Unemployment Payments

Vilma Cekanavicute v Department of Social Protection, Autumn 2021

Our client who lived and worked in Ireland for 18 years was stopped at the airport on her way back to Lithuania in the summer of 2020. She was asked for her details and was told that as she was leaving the country, her PUP would be stopped immediately. On her return to Ireland, her PUP payment was paid to her but the Department refused to pay the PUP for the period she was out of the country. We judicially reviewed the decision and the Department compromised proceedings by agreeing to pay our client the PUP payment for the period she was in Lithuania.

We have also taken several other cases which have resulted in all our clients receiving the PUP payments which were wrongfully stopped.

APPEAL: Kristina Kosinceva v Minister for Social Protection, January 2020

Mr. Justice Robert Haughton said that Minister for Social Protection had acted ultra vires in requiring the appellant in applying for Jobseeker’s Allowance while homeless to provide evidence that she was “currently residing” in a particular Intreo Centre catchment area. He also ruled that the Minister had acted unlawfully in failing to have in place or publicise any or any appropriate process for inviting, making, receiving and determining applications for Jobseeker’s Allowance from a homeless person such as the appellant. You can read the full judgment here (PDF).