William Greensmyth
Partner
Ireland
On 6 January 2026, the Minister for Justice Home Affairs and Migration, Jim O'Callaghan published the General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 (the Civil Reform Bill). Its primary purpose is to implement many of the recommendations made in the Report on the review of the administration of Civil Justice in Ireland published in late 2020 (the Kelly Report) prepared by a review group, chaired by Mr Justice Peter Kelly (former president of the High Court).
There are important and extensive procedural changes included in the Bill, intended to streamline civil litigation, reduce delay and increase efficiency. If enacted, the Bill will have significant, far-reaching implications on how civil proceedings will be conducted in Ireland.
Below is an overview of some of the key changes clients should be aware of.
Updated and front-loaded discovery timeframes
The Civil Reform Bill introduces an enormous overhaul to the discovery process. Under the Bill, rather than dealing with discovery once pleadings have closed, a claimant must provide documents they wish to rely on within 28 days of the service of the claim form on the respondent. The respondent must then provide their documents within 42 days of the service of their defence on the claimant.
The Bill suggests that parties may agree a longer period, or the Court may permit an extension to this timeframe, but the default expectation is compliance with the statutory deadlines.
Parties are also required to furnish any additional relevant documents no later than 28 days prior to trial, unless the Court orders an alternative timeline.
These amendments appear to ensure that the matter of discovery (on the part of the claimant) will be considered and commenced with prior to the issuing of proceedings, which will front-load the discovery process significantly.
Parties are also required to furnish any additional relevant documents no later than 28 days prior to trial, unless the Court orders an alternative timeline.
These amendments appear to ensure that the matter of discovery (on the part of the claimant) will be considered and commenced with prior to the issuing of proceedings, which will front-load the discovery process significantly.
Presumption against adjournments
Another significant procedural shift is the introduction of a statutory presumption against granting adjournments, extensions, or stays.
The Court will not grant such applications unless satisfied that (i) there is sufficient reason for the order sought; and (ii) granting the adjournment is in the interests of justice.
Agreement between the parties is no longer, by itself, sufficient to obtain an adjournment. The Court will instead consider factors such as impact of delay, conduct of the parties and if prior adjournments were granted when considering whether or not to grant an adjournment.
Importantly, where the rules are not adhered to and an adjournment is nonetheless granted, the Court must impose a penalty on the party seeking the adjournment, proportionate to the delay and its impact.
This is a clear signal by the legislature that unnecessary delay will no longer be tolerated, and any undue delay will impose a penalty on the party seeking it. We suspect that this will reduce the number of adjournments by consent by a significant number.
The Court will not grant such applications unless satisfied that (i) there is sufficient reason for the order sought; and (ii) granting the adjournment is in the interests of justice.
Agreement between the parties is no longer, by itself, sufficient to obtain an adjournment. The Court will instead consider factors such as impact of delay, conduct of the parties and if prior adjournments were granted when considering whether or not to grant an adjournment.
Importantly, where the rules are not adhered to and an adjournment is nonetheless granted, the Court must impose a penalty on the party seeking the adjournment, proportionate to the delay and its impact.
This is a clear signal by the legislature that unnecessary delay will no longer be tolerated, and any undue delay will impose a penalty on the party seeking it. We suspect that this will reduce the number of adjournments by consent by a significant number.
Discontinuance
In order to further avoid delays, the Bill introduces a structured mechanism for discontinuing stalled proceedings whereby if no step has been taken by the opposing party for six months, a party may serve notice of intention to seek deemed discontinuance. If no step is taken within 28 days of that notice, the party may apply to the Court for an order of discontinuance.
A discontinuance may be set aside within three months, where the Court is satisfied that (i) good and sufficient reason exists; and (ii) the failure to progress the case was outside the party’s control.
This reform encourages purposeful progression of litigation and provides a clear exit mechanism for dormant cases. We expect that this proposed change will also have the effect of reducing undue delay in Court proceedings.
Standard Claim Notice
The Bill also standardises originating documents by replacing multiple existing forms with a single document type: the “Claim Notice".
We believe that this change will reduce complexity, promote uniformity across jurisdictions, and simplify commencement procedures.
Time limits for furnishing a party-and-party bill of costs
Under this new regime, a party awarded costs must now furnish the other side with a bill of costs within three months of the conclusion of proceedings.
This provision aims to ensure that parties awarded cost move quickly in in the recovery of these costs and bring the issue of post-litigation costs to a close more swiftly.
Changes to lis pendens procedures
A lis pendens would be vacated automatically under the Bill after 28 days of registration. A party requiring the lis pendens to remain active may apply to the Court within the 28‑day period to extend the registration.
This change, again, indicates that legislatures wish to deal with issues arising in litigation more swiftly.
Increased monetary jurisdiction for lower courts
Two important monetary increases would be introduced (see below):
- Circuit Court jurisdiction increased from €75,000 to €100,000; and
- District Court jurisdiction increased from €15,000 to €20,000.
These adjustments aim to rebalance caseloads and promote more efficient allocation of claims across court levels.
Conclusion
The reforms introduced by the Bill will likely provide more structure to court process, making it more streamlined and cost-effective. It means that claims will be dealt by the Courts expeditiously and with greater efficiency and is a clear indication by the legislature that undue delays will no longer be tolerated within Irish civil litigation. We will continue to track the progress of the Bill as it makes its way through a lengthy, comprehensive legislative process and provide key updates.
For further information on any of the issues discussed in this publication please contact our Insolvency and Dispute Resolution team.
