TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

High Court dismisses students’ appeal against third-level grant reforms

Students whose grants were reformed last year are told the State’s economic problems trump their legitimate expectations.

Image: reidrac via Flickr

THE HIGH COURT has this morning dismissed a judicial review sought by three college students against a reform to the student maintenance grants system enacted by Ruairí Quinn last year.

The action had been taken in the name of three students whose maintenance grants were being cut by an aggregate total of over €10,000 per year. They was backed by the Union of Students in Ireland, who had offered legal representation for the students.

The students had claimed that the changes to grants – which were announced in Brian Lenihan’s final Budget, but which only became law through a statutory instrument signed by Ruairí Quinn last June – were in breach of Section 6 of the Student Support Act 2011.

That section outlines that students who are already in receipt of a maintenance grant should “continue to receive the grant concerned until the person has completed that course and he or she shall not apply for a grant other than the grant of which he or she is in receipt”.

The students also argued that they had a legitimate expectation that although the value of their grant may rise and fall on an annual basis, they would continue to receive grants at the previous categorisation.

This morning, however, Justice John Hedigan ruled in favour of the Minister for Education on both grounds. The Minister had defended the proposals by saying they were necessary given the severe economic shock the state had undergone in the past few years.

Profound economic shock

Hedigan agreed, finding that the profound economic difficulties being experienced by the State had greater significance than the legitimate expectation which the students had about the status of their grants.

The 2011 changes meant that students were required to live more than 45km from their college in order to qualify for the higher ‘non-adjacent’ rate of grants, raising the threshold from 24km.

One of the three students taking the case, originally from Co Clare but studying at NUI Galway, said the change in grants meant she could not afford to live in Galway and had to move home – where public transport options meant it was impossible to get to college before 11am.

The changes, combined with general reductions in the grant amounts, meant that students who lived between the two boundaries and who qualified for the highest category of grant saw cuts from €6,100 down to €2,445 as a result of the new boundary changes.

USI estimates that around 25,000 existing students were affected by the change, with around 7,000 of these being mature students over the age of 23.

The court gave the students seven days to consider seeking an appeal to the ruling. This morning USI president Gary Redmond said he believed there was grounds for the ruling to be appealed, but that the costs of pursuing an appeal would be a factor in whether one was sought.

Read next:

Comments (34 Comments)

  • squid 25/04/12 #

    Re Ian Murray’s point, I would hope that this was appealed, this is a more dangerous precedent than it might first appear, and must be overturned. If judges ignore the rule of law in favor of financial concerns then we are all goosed.

    Reply
  • So, once again, “State” is more important. I could not have done my degree without the full grant as an mature student with a child. Which means that really, don’t bother to go to college unless you can work your butt off while studying or be lucky enough to have parents who can take care of you for your whole degree. But hey, at least, when you’ll be queuing for your dole, you can be comforted by the knowledge that you sacrificed your education for the greater good of the State’s finances.

    Reply
  • The most disappointing part of this ruling is not the decision itself. It is the fact that the high court was presented with legal arguments for and against a case and made a financial decision an not a legal one. I’m sure most would accept a high court ruling made on the basis of law. Very worrying actions on the part of the courts.

    Reply
  • It’s strange that Semi State bosses who refuse pay cuts can’t be equally discommoded in the national interest, isn’t it?

    Reply
  • Stop throwing around the word “reforms” when what you’re really talking about is “cuts”.

    Reply
  • “the profound economic difficulties being experienced by the State had greater significance than the legitimate expectation which the students had about the status of their grants”?

    So much for investing in the future.

    Reply
  • An extremely disappointing outcome to this case. The students who took this case and the thousands more awaiting the outcome had a genuine expectation of a positive outcome. I’m genuinely stunned the ” profound economic difficulties being experienced by the State” defense worked when in so many cases of individuals and families their profound economic difficulties were/are ignored by judges when ruling against them for monies owed they can’t afford to pay.

    Well done to those three students & USI for taking the case in the first place even if unsuccessful. They now face a difficult decision re an appeal given the potentially huge costs involved. Irony is the state whose defense was dire economic straits would have no problem whatsoever spending a fortune of taxpayer’s money defending such an appeal were one to happen.

    Reply
  • Terrible outcome, an investment in education is more important than un vouched TD expenses.

    Reply
  • what a nonsense, we are under no legal obligation to pay unsecured bond holders and we do it, and legally these students should and we burn them????

    Reply
  • alan 25/04/12 #

    interesting that they found in favour of the state

    rather than the people who make up that state

    Reply
  • So Enda what does this do for the strategy of attracting getting off shore companies into Ireland? Look Mr CEO we have a corporation tax of 12.5% and a well educated young work force. Oh hang on a second better scrap that bit. Once again the austerity government decides investing in the future is not a priority.

    Reply
  • What type of state do we live in now? Are we expected to ignore the laws of the land and plead ‘perilous economic situation’ as a defense to not paying our bills? Is this not a very dangerous precedent that has been set today? It is NOT at the discretion of the judge to find for the government on the basis that they cannot pay, he is there to impose the rule of law and nothing more. We are now officially a banana republic with no separation between state and judiciary and it was made official my Mr. Justice John Hedigan, congratulations, you are now indeed a history maker. The man who proved what some of us already had guessed, judiciary is nothing to do with the law or justice, merely a tool to protect vested interests. Hang your head in shame ‘Justice’ Hedigan. A very black day for our country.

    Reply
  • This is an absolute outrage!

    I know of so many people that won’t be able to return to college in September because their grants have been cut so severely. Many students just cannot survive on the grant at its reduced level.

    Coupled with that, the news that the registration fee is to hit €3,000 by 2015 will put more pressure on students.

    We are facing a situation where a whole generation of young people will not be able to access higher education for financial reasons. As a supposedly “developed” country, we should all be balking at the very possibility of such a situation arising, yet now it is becoming a reality and there has not been the national outrage one would expect.

    How many young people will be forced to leave college as a result of today’s decision?

    How many will not be able to find employment here because they have no qualifications and will have to emigrate to Canada or Australia in the hope of finding something over there?

    Our young people deserve better. The future of this country deserves better. Free education, nothing less!

    Reply
    • C 25/04/12 #

      “We are facing a situation where a whole generation of young people will not be able to access higher education for financial reasons”

      This is hyperbole of the highest order. I could understand if this was America and we were talking about outrageous costs per semester but this article is about circumstances being changed so that people get paid slightly less to go to college. To suggest an entire generation wont be able to access higher education for financial reasons is patently ridiculous.

      For that matter I know of plenty of people who claim they “just cannot survive” without their grant payments. Their situations are no different to mine, with only 1 working public servant parent bringing in an income. I don’t get a grant, they do, they have iPhones, MacBook Pros and go out 3 nights a week. I have an €80 Nokia, a standard issue Toshiba and rarely go on nights out.

      They argue that this is justified because the “social aspect” of college is integral to the experience. To this I say Bollocks the government pays for you to get educated not to have “The College Experience”

      This is not to say people wont be affected by these cuts, of course they will but almost all will cut back on outgoings or get a loan or a part time job they are not being cut off just paid less, we should not lose sight of that.

      Reply
  • The priorities of this government are all over the place. There appears to be no joined up thinkin at all

    Reply
  • This reminds me of that South Park episode…

    Dumb da Dumb Dumb Dumb…

    Actually this country our government and the European union as a whole…

    Dumb da Dumb Dumb Dumb…

    Vote NO..!!!

    Smart Smart Smart Smart…

    Reply
  • This case was an absolute waste of money by the USI.

    Reply
    • It was only a waste of money because of the failure of the courts to adjudicate in an independent manner. The case was to do with legality of the ministers decision, not whose point of argument
      was of greater fiscal importance.

      Reply
    • Making a stand for something that affects our education system – a waste of money? They might have lost but they did bring much needed attention to the issue and took the government on. Fair play to them. The government cannot make decisions based solely on the short-term, where are the reports/findings into the consequences of cuts like these? It was the lack of long-term strategy that caused most of our issues.

      Reply
    • Oh so blame the judge?

      Reply
    • Great so they spent how much on the case just to get a bit of publicity for the issue?

      Reply
    • that was all they wanted? publicity? that has to be the most ludicrous thing ive seen you post yet mr.silver spoon, the stupidest thing anyone ever did was make education exclusive, it holds us back as a race, we dont all have mumsy to pay for everything but we all deserve the same access, i challenge you to put a valid argument to this

      Reply
    • @David I did not say publicity was their motivation, but rather a positive outcome from a disappointing result. Taking the entire situation into context, not only what this means for the students in question and future students in similar situations, I wonder why you are so outraged at this particular case? Nobody starts a court case with the intention of losing. I would like to know if you were in their situation what action you would have taken, or at least offer some sort of alternative if you are going to criticize them so heavily.

      Reply
    • my guess is he tried for a position in usi but he’s not allowed in

      Reply
  • This is what happens when our people allow for government to lower judges pay, some judges for fear of their pay packet being squeezed will rule in favor of government even if the law clearly states otherwise. I was against that amendment to the constitution which unfortunately got passed because I did fear this situation would happen.

    Reply
    • thats the truth karl. theres no way theyll be independent when they can make desicions that might as they see it, safeguard their own paypackets, as large and unnessecary as some of them may be

      Reply
  • Its important to remember that the state has a lot more people than just students getting funding. Students are a small piece of the very large pie known as Ireland. So the judge has ruled, correctly, that like many other cuts – this cant be reversed because the state needs the money to survive and funding students will cost the state, and others which are of greater importance. A common sense approach, which I didn’t think was even possible.

    There is still a massive amount of students who don’t rely on extra funding from the state, there is those who get it and shouldn’t even be entitled to it and of course those who don’t get it but should be entitled. So plenty of people are still getting educated.

    The USI should focus on spending student money a bit better and perhaps should help the students that are really struggling rather than carrying out protests that cost a fortune through tents, toilets, banners, etc. and trying to bring the state to court and costing students even more money.

    The ruling seems to allow the students bring the case again at a later date (for future students that is) when the state is more financially able and perhaps reverse the cut?

    Reply
    • Reversing cuts? I’d love to know if there is actually a precedent for that ever happening before.
      Obviously the State has other people to fund, but now the students have faced their cuts, who’s next on the list?
      You can’t complain about protesters when they are the people trying to do something- anything- about the situation the Government is putting this country in, even if its just making noise! They should not be allowed to inflict these sorts of crippling cuts on any group!

      Reply
  • Redmond and the rest of Ogra Fianna Fail/USI leadership knew quite well they would not win this case, in fact I think they took the case for two reasons. Firstly it wound down any continued active protests by the students so efforts could be concentrated on “the case” . Secondly the USI can now push their right-wing agenda of a student loan schemes/graduate tax options on the student body as the only “realistic” course of action.

    Reply
  • I’m still waiting on mine but it was halved last year so its not looking good!

    Reply
  • we have no money

    Reply

Add New Comment