This note examines a series of recent decisions of the Irish courts in relation to decisions and appeals in the Irish social welfare system: C.P. v Chief Appeals Officer; A. M. v. Minister for Social Protection; B. v Minister for Social Protection; and C. O'B. v. Chief Appeals Officer. All the cases concerned claims for domiciliary care allowance (a payment in respect of children who require additional care) and involved a number of issues including the level of detail to be included in initial negative decisions, whether the Minister is obliged to require a medical examination of a child; whether the deciding officer had fettered his discretion by relying on the opinion of the Department’s medical assessor; whether medical assessors and deciding officer should be directed to appear at appeal hearings; the power to review appeals decisions, and when judicial review is an appropriate remedy.

Note that in CSB v Minister for Social Protection [2016] IECA 116 the Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal and reversed the decision of the High Court in B v MSP. Hogan J for the court (perhaps surprisingly) concluded that Barrett J. in the High Court was 'in error in concluding that the Department had effectively applied a fixed policy position whereby the medical assessor’s opinion was unthinkingly and unquestioningly endorsed by the deciding officer'.