Factual and Procedural Background
This judicial review concerns an application by Plaintiff and a minor Plaintiff (suing by his mother and next friend) against Defendant, the Health Service Executive (HSE), regarding the Defendant's failure to investigate a complaint under the statutory complaints process established by the Disability Act 2005 (the "2005 Act"). The Plaintiff made an application for an assessment of need under the 2005 Act for the minor Plaintiff, which was required to be commenced and completed within specified statutory timeframes. The assessment was not completed within these timeframes, prompting a complaint to the Defendant. Despite a protocol/pre-litigation letter issued by the Plaintiff's solicitor, the Defendant indicated a further delay of seven months before processing the complaint.
The Plaintiff then initiated judicial review proceedings seeking an order of mandamus directing the Defendant to process the complaint within eight weeks. Leave to seek judicial review was granted following a hearing. Subsequent to leave being granted, the parties negotiated and the Defendant consented to an order mandating processing of the complaint within eight weeks and to pay the Plaintiff's costs. The Defendant did not file a statement of opposition or defend the case substantively.
The Court considered the statutory framework, relevant case law, and recent developments concerning delays in complaints under the 2005 Act before deciding whether to make the consent order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should make a consent order in judicial review proceedings where all parties consent but the Court must ensure the order is a lawful exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
- Whether the Defendant’s delay in investigating complaints under the 2005 Act breaches the statutory obligations and principles established in precedent.
- The appropriate timeframe within which complaints under the 2005 Act should be processed, particularly in light of statutory timeframes for assessments and judicial review jurisprudence.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v an Bord Pleanala & Ors [2024] IESC 4 |
Clarification that the High Court’s inherent supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review must be exercised lawfully, even when parties consent to orders. |
Guided the Court’s approach to reviewing the consent order to ensure it was a lawful exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. |
| J.F. v Health Service Executive [2018] IEHC 294 |
Established that complaints under the 2005 Act must be completed within a period proportionate to statutory timeframes for assessments. |
Informed the Court’s understanding of reasonable timeframes for complaint processing and the unlawfulness of excessive delays. |
| JN & TM v. Harraghy [2022] IEHC 407 |
Recognized increased complexity in service statement related complaints under the 2005 Act. |
Referenced as part of the evolving complexity contributing to delays in complaints processing. |
| CTM v. HSE [2022] IEHC 131 |
Addressed assessment-related complaints increasing in complexity and volume. |
Referenced as a factor increasing the workload and delay in complaint investigations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging the unusual nature of making a consent order in judicial review proceedings, emphasizing that the Court must independently ensure that any order is a lawful exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, even if all parties consent. The Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group to underline this principle.
The Court then examined the statutory framework under the 2005 Act and related regulations, detailing the statutory obligation to commence and complete assessments within prescribed timeframes. It noted that the complaint at issue concerned failure to meet these statutory timeframes.
The Court reviewed the affidavit evidence filed by a senior manager within the Defendant’s complaints governance team, which disclosed a significant backlog and delays in processing complaints, with average processing times increasing from 33 days in 2019 to 172 days in 2023. The affidavit explained the causes of delay, including increased complaint volume, unchanged staffing levels, increased complexity of complaints, and administrative burdens.
The Court observed that the Defendant accepts its legal obligation to process complaints within a reasonable timeframe, as established by prior case law, but has not demonstrated a clear plan to remedy systemic delays. The Defendant’s approach of settling judicial reviews by agreeing to expedited processing in individual cases incentivizes litigation and strains Court resources.
Despite these concerns, the Court found that in the particular case before it, the Defendant is complying with its obligations by agreeing to process the complaint within eight weeks, and thus making the consent order is a lawful exercise of the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
The Court GRANTED the consent order sought, directing the Defendant to process the complaint within eight weeks from the date of the order and awarding costs to the Plaintiff to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
This decision ensures compliance with statutory obligations in respect of the individual complaint but does not address the broader systemic delays affecting the complaints process under the 2005 Act. The Court noted that the Defendant’s pattern of settling cases to expedite individual complaints without systemic reform leads to increased litigation and judicial resource burdens. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies the existing supervisory principles to confirm the lawfulness of the consent order in this instance.