A mature student and father of four has won a High Court case over the Government's withdrawal in 2003 of payment of a back-to-education grant during college holidays.
The court ruled that the Department of Social and Family Affairs had breached a commitment given to Michael Power.
However, Mr Justice John MacMenamin stressed yesterday that he was finding in favour of the claim of Mr Power only and rejected similar claims by 173 other students.
This was because of their failure to explain their delay in bringing legal proceedings challenging the payment cut or to outline what steps they took individually after the holiday payment was ended.
While there was also a delay of some 11 months by Mr Power in bringing his action, he had put forward evidence explaining that he was involved in 2003 in a campaign to reverse the removal of the payment through political pressure and had come to court when that failed, the judge said. He had also produced evidence to show the effect on him of the payment being cut.
In those circumstances, the judge said, he would exercise his discretion to find in favour of Mr Power.
He held that the Government's decision to cut the holiday payments was contrary to Mr Power's legitimate expectation, and Mr Power was entitled to restitution and to be placed in the same financial position as he would have been in had the decision not been made.
He said he would hear submissions from counsel in two weeks as to the level of restitution for Mr Power and regarding the orders to be made in the case.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs had announced the back-to-education scheme in 2002 to help mature students pursue third-level education courses.
However, in March 2003 it said it would not pay the grant during summer holidays.
Mr Power, a UCD chemistry student from Glencairn Drive, Leopardstown Valley, Dublin, had argued that without the scheme he would have been unable to go to university.
He claimed he had a legitimate expectation that the grant would continue to be paid during term holidays while he was studying for his degree course and that he was entitled to compensation for the decision to stop payments during holidays.
He said the department had, in an information booklet of June 2002 about the back-to-education allowance scheme, offered the allowance for the duration of a third-level degree and other courses, "including all holiday periods".
The booklet featured the headline "Helping You Return to Education" and outlined a scheme aimed at helping unemployed people, lone parents, disabled persons and others return to education and improve their career prospects.
It was particularly designed to promote second-chance education for those who had not had third-level education.
On that basis, the student applicants claimed they began various courses, including third-level degrees, and were admitted to the allowance scheme on January 1st, 2003.
However, on March 26th, 2003, the department announced that, following a review of the scheme, it had been decided that, with effect from summer 2003, the allowance would not be paid for the summer holiday periods between academic years.
Yesterday Mr Justice MacMenamin said the department had "issued a statement or adopted a position amounting to a specific promise or representation, express or implied" as to how it would act.