A challenge by 173 mature students to the removal, for the duration of summer holidays, of a social welfare payment aimed at helping them pursue third-level courses came before the High Court yesterday.
The students claim that the Department of Social and Family Affairs had, in an information booklet of June 2002 about the back-to-education allowance scheme, offered them an allowance payable for the duration of 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 people and others return to education and improve their career prospects.
It was particularly designed to promote second-chance education for those who had not been to third-level education, the court heard.
On that basis, the students claim they began various courses, including third-level degrees, and were admitted to the back-to-education 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, with effect from summer 2003, that the allowance would not be paid for the summer holiday periods between the academic years.
The March 2003 decision was a breach of their legitimate expectation that the allowance would be paid for the duration of their courses, including the summer holidays, the students claim.
Yesterday Anthony Collins SC, for the 173 applicants, said they were not seeking damages but restitution which would involve their being put back into the position they had enjoyed before the March 2003 cut.
In an affidavit Michael Power, of Glencairn Drive, Leopardstown Valley, Dublin, one of the student applicants and a married father of four, said he had enrolled in September 2002 as a full-time mature student on a four-year science degree course at UCD.
He had seen information about the back-to-education scheme in a booklet from the Department of Family and Social Affairs in June 2002.
But for that scheme, he could not have gone to university, he said. The booklet had said the allowance was payable for the duration of the course, including all holidays. It had also said the scheme was not means-tested.
The decision in March 2003 that the allowance would not be paid during holidays was a breach of his legitimate expectation, Mr Power said.
Eanna Mulloy SC, for the Minister, opposed the students' application and argued that it was brought outside the legal time limits.
Without prejudice to that claim, Mr Mulloy denied that the students had a legitimate expectation that the allowance scheme would continue for the duration of their courses.
The case concluded yesterday afternoon, and Mr Justice John MacMenamim reserved judgment to February 28th.