04 Disputes & Investigations
Sinéad Hayes Practice Development Consultant
2025 AT A GLANCE
- Ireland’s first representative action was launched under the Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 and two further Qualified Entities were designated.
- The Supreme Court clarified the test for dismissal for failure to prosecute and the primary factor is now the length of the plaintiff’s delay.
- The Hague Judgments Convention entered into force in the UK on 1 July 2025, allowing judgments from the UK courts to be easily recognised and enforced in Ireland.
- Legislation for the digitalisation of civil proceedings was introduced, providing for digital delivery of documents via a court portal once implemented.
- A pilot project for the recording and broadcasting of selected Supreme Court decisions was launched.
REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS
The Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 (the Act), commenced last year, transposing the EU Representative Actions Directive (2020/1828/EU) (the RAD) into Irish law. It allows consumers to pursue group claims via a Qualified Entity (QE) for breaches of EU consumer protection laws occurring on or after 25 June 2023.
2025 was a milestone year for the Act with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (the ICCL) launching Ireland’s first representative action in May. The ICCL’s claim against Microsoft alleges GDPR breaches involving ‘Real-Time Bidding’ on Microsoft’s online advertising system. The ICCL is seeking relief “on behalf of all affected people in Ireland”, pointing to an ‘opt-out’ claim for injunctive relief (other redress measures, such as damages, can only be pursued if affected consumers ‘opt-in’). See further details in our briefing here.
In July 2025, Digital Rights Ireland was designated as Ireland’s third QE, joining two other Irish QEs, all of which focus primarily on privacy and data protection. This is in line with the general trend across the EU.
It will be interesting to see whether the ICCL claim paves the way for further claims under the Act. For now, broader use of the Act, especially for ‘opt-in’ claims requiring funding, may be constrained as third-party litigation funding (TPLF) remains largely prohibited in Ireland. Although the Law Reform Commission held a consultation on TPLF in 2023 and plans to publish its recommendations in spring 2026, the Minister for Justice has expressed reluctance to permit such funding in Irish courts.
Ultimately, EU-level developments could influence domestic policy. In March 2025, the European Commission published its Final Report Mapping TPLF in the EU, in which it identified Ireland as an outlier in this area. However, at the end of November 2025, Commissioner Michael McGrath confirmed that the European Commission does not plan to regulate TPLF at this time and will instead prioritise monitoring the application of the RAD across the EU.
LEGISLATIVE AND PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENTS
Digitalisation of civil proceedings
In January 2025, SI No 13/2025 amended the Superior Court Rules to facilitate digitalisation of civil proceedings in the Superior Courts. It provides for digital delivery of documents and the introduction of statements of truth as an alternative to sworn affidavits. Similar statutory instruments amended the Circuit and District Court Rules. The Courts Service has launched a pilot Court Portal to facilitate digitalisation. It is currently only available for a Dublin division of the Circuit Court and certain probate matters, but will be rolled out incrementally once it is working well.
Recording and broadcasting of Supreme Court decisions
On 7 October 2025, a new Supreme Court Practice Direction was published, launching a pilot project for the recording and broadcasting of selected decisions. Members of the Supreme Court decide which judgments to broadcast and certain categories of case are out of scope (e.g. where sensitive personal information would be disclosed which would be “likely to cause harm”). This initiative reflects the Court’s stated commitment to open justice and aims to make proceedings accessible for educational use. Recordings are available on the Supreme Court website.
Addressing delays in the legal system
The Government’s recently published Action Plan on Competitiveness and Productivity (the Action Plan) identifies delays in the legal system, in particular in the delivery of judgments in the Superior Courts, as a risk to competitiveness. Some momentum is now gathering behind efforts to address delays.
The Court Proceedings (Delays) Act 2024 was signed into law on 1 May 2024, but has yet to be commenced. When commenced, parties to civil or criminal proceedings will be able to apply for a declaration that proceedings have not been concluded within a reasonable time and may be compensated. The Department of Justice is currently recruiting a Chief Court Delays Assessor and other assessors to evaluate such applications.
Following the 2022 Report of the Judicial Planning Working Group, a significant number of additional judges were appointed and further appointments are expected. Relatedly, the Judicial Appointments Commission was established on 1 January 2025, and we saw the first judicial appointments under that new system.
The Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 is making its way through the legislative process. It will provide for an increase in the maximum number of judges in the courts, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Other potentially helpful changes to judicial working practices include the ‘High Court Long Vacation Pilot Project’ (the Pilot) whereby certain lists continue during the long vacation. Details of feedback on the 2024 Pilot can be found in this President's Notice. Legislation is also planned to allow judges to delegate tasks to court officers, freeing up judicial time for core functions such as judgment writing.
Hague Judgments Convention enters into force in UK
The Hague Convention of 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague 2019) entered into force in the UK on 1 July 2025. This allows for judgments from the UK courts to be easily recognised and enforced in the courts of other countries (including Ireland).
Progress of Defamation Bill
Following the long-awaited publication of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 (the Bill) on 2 August 2024, the Bill has been slowly making its way through the legislative process. It is currently before the Seanad.
CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS
Below are some selected highlights from the judgments issued by the Irish Superior Courts this year.
Supreme Court clarifies the test for dismissal for failure to prosecute
In May, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Kirwan v Connors & ors [2025] IESC 21 (Kirwan), in which it overhauls the well-known “inordinate and inexcusable delay” test established in Primor v Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459 (Primor) in favour of a simplified test under which the primary factor is the length of the plaintiff’s delay. Noting that the Primor test is one of the most often invoked strands of jurisprudence, including on appeal, the Chief Justice convened an oral hearing before the entire seven-judge panel, and secured the participation of the Attorney General, in order to obtain a clear statement on this matter. Under the new, simplified test, claims are virtually certain to be dismissed after five years of inactivity unless there is a pressing exigency of justice requiring the case to succeed, for example a compelling public interest. The High Court has wasted no time in applying Kirwan . See here for further analysis of the case.
Obtaining passwords to digital devices
In Poptoshev v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2024] IEHC 721, the High Court considered whether smartphones qualify as “computers” under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (the 2001 Act) and addressed whether there is an obligation to provide passwords for seized devices. The Gardaí had seized two smartphones and a laptop under a section 48(2) warrant, and the applicant refused to provide passwords, leading to his arrest.
The High Court held that the smartphones were ‘computers’ under the 2001 Act. The High Court also held that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to passwords, as passwords exist independently of the individual’s will.
This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered its judgment on 24 November 2025 ([2025] IESC 47). The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court but on different grounds. While it affirmed the High Court's ruling that smartphones are ‘computers’ under the 2001 Act, it disagreed with the High Court's finding on self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court held that the compelled disclosure of a passcode or the compelled biometric operation of a device does engage the privilege against self-incrimination, because it communicates potentially incriminating facts (knowledge, possession, control).
The Supreme Court found that compelled disclosure under section 49 of the 2001 Act is lawful and proportionate when used to facilitate the search of a device in the context of a judicially authorised investigation. However, section 49 does not enable the compelled passcode to be used in evidence against the suspect at trial.
With the Supreme Court's judgment, there is now clarity on the compellability of passwords and biometric access to digital devices, and how the privilege against self-incrimination applies in these situations.
Recognition and enforcement of EU judgments in Ireland
In Scully v Coucal Limited [2025] IESC 20, the Supreme Court clarified the high threshold for refusing recognition and enforcement of a Polish judgment in Ireland on public policy grounds under article 45(1)(a) of EU Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The Court held that, although an agreement to assign a bare cause of action would be unenforceable under Irish law, that should not automatically preclude recognition and enforcement in Ireland of a judgment obtained by the assignee from the court of another Member State in which the assignment was valid. See further discussion here.
State liability in negligence clarified
In Barlow & ors v The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources [2025] IESC 14, the Supreme Court considered whether State bodies owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, who claimed significant financial losses due to the alleged negligent mismanagement of mussel seed resources by the Minister, the Registrar General of Fishing Boats, and the Attorney General. The Court found that the State had assumed responsibility to the plaintiffs, but it applied administrative law principles in assessing the standard of care, which means that the plaintiffs must provide proof that the State’s actions were irrational. The case has been remitted to the High Court for determination. See further discussion here.
RESTRUCTURING & INSOLVENCY
Case law round-up
It has been another busy year for restructuring and insolvency matters before the Irish courts.
- In the matter of Cityjet Designated Activity Company [2025] IEHC 562, the High Court approved the examiners’ scheme of arrangement despite objections from various shareholding creditors within the group. In rejecting the objectors' arguments that the scheme was unfairly prejudicial to their interests, and that Cityjet had no reasonable prospect of survival, the Court made some interesting findings on the evidential standards to be met when it comes to the valuation (and challenges to the valuation) of key company assets for the purpose of considering the return to creditors in a liquidation of the company.
- In Re Mercer Agencies Limited [20251 EHC 261, the High Court delivered a landmark ruling, recognising UK/Northern Irish administration proceedings in the Republic of Ireland for the first time by applying the principles of equivalence and legitimate purpose. The decision is an important development confirming the availability of common law recognition and enforcement of foreign insolvency orders in Ireland.
- In Downtul Limited [In Liquidation] v Companies Act |2025| |EHC 358, the High Court restricted two directors for failing to act responsibly and in the interests of their company, allowing debts to accumulate without a means of discharging them. This case is discussed in more detail in the Corporate chapter.
- In Tweedswood Limited (in Receivership) and Tom Kavanagh (Receiver) v Power [2025] IESC 18, the Supreme Court discharged an interlocutory injunction originally granted in 2010 in favour of a receiver over a commercial property in Wexford. It held that the courts retain discretion to set aside interlocutory relief where there has been a culpable delay in advancing the substantive proceedings.
- In Perfect Stripe Limited t/a Grafter v Fennell & ors [2025] |EHC 585, the High Court refused Grafter's application for an interlocutory injunction to regain possession of three Dublin office buildings, lawfully repossessed by receivers after over €3m in rent arrears. Grafter alleged that the rent varied with the landlords' loan interest, the rent increases were imposed under pressure, and that re-entry was unlawful. The Court found no evidence supporting these claims and, applying the test from Merck Sharpe and Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare, held that Grafter had failed to establish any fair issue to be tried.
EU legislation
- Published in December 2022, the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law is aimed at improving predictability and consistency in insolvency outcomes across the EU. It covers avoidance actions, pre-pack mechanisms, asset recovery, creditors’ committees and directors’ duties. At the time of writing, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have reached a provisional political agreement on the text, which paves the way for formal adoption in the near future.
LOOKING AHEAD
- The highly anticipated General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill is due to be published imminently. It is expected to implement significant outstanding recommendations of the Kelly Report, including those relating to judicial review, discovery and legal costs.
- We continue to await with interest the report of the Law Reform Commission setting out its recommendations on third party litigation funding (expected in Spring 2026), as well as commencement of the promised new statutory mechanism permitting funding for international commercial arbitration.
- Practice directions are also anticipated to implement the new legislation providing for digitalisation of civil proceedings.
- The legislative passage of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 slowed in 2025 but will continue to be keenly watched.
- At an EU level, progress on the highly anticipated EU Green Claims Directive has stalled. The European Commission has not formally withdrawn the proposal (which remains on the Work Programme for 2026), but we expect to get greater clarity on its future over the next year.