Ireland

The recent earthquakes in Venezuela have caused significant damage and disruption.  Reported as among the strongest earthquakes to strike the country in more than a century, the event has placed communities, infrastructure, and emergency response systems under extraordinary strain. Fortunately, several countries and international organizations have come together to provide aid and support. The insurance industry is also stepping in, with its role in the aftermath of any catastrophe ultimately being a practical one: to help capital reach damaged assets, restore operations where possible, and support recovery in a disciplined way. That said, the Venezuela earthquakes present a uniquely complex insurance and adjustment environment, particularly for multinational commercial insureds with operations, assets, or investments in the country.  While earthquake loss adjustment is typically complex, this case involves a catastrophe loss in a jurisdiction emerging from years of infrastructure deterioration, sanctions pressure, and a recent fragile political transition following the January 2026 operation involving Nicolás Maduro. For insurers and reinsurers, the result is a difficult intersection of catastrophe response, global program architecture, local regulation, and geopolitical risk. A large economic loss does not necessarily mean a large insured loss One of the first challenges is separating economic loss from insured loss. In many earthquake events, particularly in countries with low residential insurance penetration, the insured losses are likely to be heavily concentrated in large-scale commercial property, including industrial assets, energy and infrastructure, hotels, ports, financial institutions, and telecommunications facilities. Those losses may represent a relatively small portion of total national damage, but they may be highly complex on a claim-by-claim basis. For a multinational placement, relevant considerations may include: Which entity owned or leased the asset? Which policy responds? Was the risk insured locally, through a fronted local policy, through a global master program, through a captive, or through some combination of all of the above? What potential challenges exists, given the interplay between a local admitted policy under Venezuela law and a master-policy that is likely governed under foreign law? Is there DIC/DIL coverage? Are limits, deductibles, sublimits, waiting periods, occurrence definitions, and sanctions clauses aligned across the program?  The answers to these questions warrant early consideration, because they will likely shape what follows. The local policy may be only one piece of the program For multinational commercial risks, Venezuelan situs property will often involve a local admitted policy with excess protection, reinsurance, or master-policy support sitting elsewhere.  That structure is common in global property programs, but it becomes more difficult in a politically sensitive and sanctions-impacted environment. A local policy may be necessary for compliance with Venezuelan insurance law.  A master policy may sit in London, the United States, Europe, Bermuda, or another international market. Reinsurers may be several steps removed from the original insured, but still exposed to the same factual loss. The insured may also have a captive or internal risk-financing layer. In a routine loss, those structures can be managed through established claims protocols. In a catastrophe, though, they can become pressure points. The local insurer may need to adjust the claim on the ground. The master-policy insurer may need to evaluate difference-in-conditions or difference-in-limits exposure. Reinsurers will likely require timely notice and reserve information. Brokers will be coordinating across several jurisdictions. And each participant may be subject to different regulations and reporting obligations. The claim should therefore begin with a program map. Before the adjustment turns to scope or quantum, the parties should identify the insured entities, all relevant covered locations, policy layers and attachment points, local and master interactions, reinsurance placements, and payment pathways. Access and evidence will be difficult Earthquake losses are evidence-intensive. Engineers need to distinguish earthquake-caused structural damage from pre-existing issues, deferred maintenance, construction and design deficiencies, and ordinary wear and tear.  In Venezuela, that inquiry may be especially difficult. Many commercial structures may have been affected by years of underinvestment, limited maintenance, and prior unrepaired damage, all of which makes causation and scope analysis more complicated. The question will be what was already present, what must be repaired to restore the damaged property, and what work reflects code compliance, betterment, or long-deferred capital improvement. Aftershocks could add another layer. A building that is safe to inspect on one day may become unsafe the next. Emergency shoring, demolition, debris removal, temporary repairs, and government safety orders may alter the condition of the property before the insurer’s experts can inspect. In some cases, physical evidence may be destroyed and it may be beyond the control of the stakeholders involved. Valuation may be harder than coverage Even where coverage can be confirmed, valuation may also prove difficult.  Replacement cost assumes that damaged property can be repaired or replaced in a reasonably functioning market. But post-earthquake Venezuela may present short-supplied or hyperinflated materials, currency barriers, limited availability of qualified contractors, damaged transportation routes, and sanctions-related constraints on vendors, banks, or state-linked counterparties. Those factors can materially affect repair cost, repair duration, and business interruption measurement. They can also create disputes over whether claimed costs are reasonable, whether they reflect post-loss demand surge, whether they include upgrades or code-driven improvements, and whether the insured can actually reinstate the property as claimed. For multinational companies, there may also be a tension between loss restoration and global capital planning. A company re-entering or expanding in Venezuela after recent political developments may view earthquake repairs as part of a broader reinvestment strategy. That is commercially understandable, but it can create insurance issues. Property insurance indemnifies covered loss but does not typically fund modernization, expansion, or strategic repositioning. The adjustment needs to separate covered repair from elective improvements. Sanctions compliance is a central, not peripheral, part of the claim In Venezuela, sanctions compliance may become a material element of claim payment issuance.  The relevant parties in a claim may include not only the named insured, but also affiliates, landlords, joint venture partners, state-owned entities, and other local loss payees. A payment that appears commercially routine may raise sanctions concerns depending on who receives it, who controls the recipient, which banks are involved, and whether U.S., UK, EU, or other sanctions regimes apply. For insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and adjusters with U.S., UK, EU, or international market connections, that means claim handling should include robust sanctions screening and careful documentation of legal authority for any transaction involving restricted parties or jurisdictions. Aggregation and reinsurance issues may move quickly The reinsurance implications may also be significant, even if the total insured loss is not globally market-moving. Earthquake sequences raise aggregation questions. Are the initial shocks and aftershocks one occurrence or multiple occurrences? Does the policy contain an hours clause? Do separate commercial locations aggregate under a single catastrophe deductible? Are facultative placements implicated? And are local insurers retaining meaningful exposure or passing much of the risk into international markets? Those issues should also be addressed early. Reinsurers will want prompt information on affected accounts, likely ranges, policy limits, deductibles, coverage issues, and whether the losses are expected to pierce catastrophe layers. Cedants will need to preserve recoveries while also managing the practical difficulty of developing reliable reserves in a fluid environment. Conclusion The Venezuela earthquakes present a complex insurance event for multinational commercial risks with Venezuelan exposure. They will test whether global insurance programs can operate effectively where the physical damage is local, the capital is international, the law is multi-jurisdictional, and the politics remain unsettled. Loss adjustment will require coordinated guidance across Venezuelan local requirements, global program structures, sanctions regimes, reinsurance relationships, and the commercial realities on the ground. Although the loss may have been caused by earthquake, the adjustment will be shaped by much more than seismic damage. By: Brandon L. Sipple and Marcos Remete

The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 (Commencement) Order 2026 has now been published. After a period of delay pending a review of the existing Code of Practice on Longer Working, the Order confirms that the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 (“the Act”) will come into operation on 29th June 2026. The Act adopts a consent-based approach to retirement in circumstances where an employee’s contractual retirement age is lower than the State pension age (currently aged 66). This gives employees a statutory mechanism to seek to remain in employment beyond their contractual retirement age. Where an employee does not consent to retire at the applicable Contractual Retirement Age, they may notify their employer in writing of their intention to continue working. This notification must be provided: no less than 3 months and no more than 12 months before the contractual retirement date; or where the employer’s notification period is greater than 3 months, not less than the period specified or 6 months (whichever is shorter). A key feature of the legislation is the obligation on the employer to engage with such requests. Where an employer receives a notification: they should not enforce the contractual retirement age unless doing so can be objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary; and where the employer intends to enforce the contractual retirement age, they must provide a reasoned written response within one month of receipt of the notification. Failure to do so, without reasonable cause, may be a criminal offence. On summary conviction, this may result in a fine of up to €5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 12 months. Liability may attach not only to the employer entity itself, but also to directors, managers and other officers, where it can be shown that the offence was committed with their consent or connivance.  An employee can also refer a complaint to the WRC for an employer’s failure to meet its obligations under the Act. In the case of well-founded claims, the WRC can order compensation up to 104 weeks remuneration or €40,000, whichever is greater. In parallel with the Act, a revised Code of Practice on Longer Working will also come into effect on 29th June 2026. The Code is intended to guide employers and employees in engaging constructively in advance of retirement, including where employees wish to continue working beyond a contractual retirement age or beyond age 66. The Code draws an important distinction in how the objective justification test is applied. Takeaway for Employers: This legislation represents a material shift in the operation of contractual retirement ages and increases the level of scrutiny on employer decision-making in this area. Employers should: Review contracts and policies to ensure that retirement provisions are consistent with the new regime; Ensure that there is a clear internal process for handling requests to work beyond a contractual retirement age; Prepare to give reasoned and documented responses to requests, supported by objective justification where retirement is being enforced; and Be mindful of the potential for criminal liability arising from a failure to engage appropriately with employee requests. Given the legal and practical complexities, and the potential exposure arising from non-compliance, employers should seek legal advice at an early stage when dealing with requests to extend employment beyond a contractual retirement age. Links:   Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 Code of Practice on Longer Working 29th May 2026 Authors- Jane Holian and Ethna Dillon

The Workplace Relations Commission (the "WRC") has recently published its Annual Report for 2025. The report provides a useful overview of complaint trends, adjudication activity, mediation outcomes, inspection and enforcement work, and wider strategic developments across the employment law landscape. Set out below is a summary of some of the key points from the Report. Complaints and Adjudication Hearings Complaint levels remained high in 2025. The WRC received 10,559 complaint applications representing 19,068 individual complaints, averaging approximately two specific complaints per application. As in previous years, the Unfair Dismissals Act, Payment of Wages Act, Organisation of Working Time Act and Employment Equality Act featured prominently among the redress legislation most commonly relied upon by complainants. Equality related complaints were particularly notable, with referrals under the Employment Equality legislation increasing by 30%. and referrals under the Equal Status Act increasing by 15%. Disability, gender and race remained the most frequently cited discriminatory grounds in employment equality complaints. The report also points to growing pressure on adjudication services. 8,690 adjudication files were created during the year, representing a 30% increase on 2024. At the same time, 7,727 hearings were scheduled and 4,289 hearings were held, both down on the previous year. The WRC issued 2,506 decisions and recommendations in 2025, with a median period of 39 working days from hearing to decision. However, the median waiting time from receipt of complaint to first hearing rose from 133 days in January 2025 to 174 days by December 2025, suggesting continued capacity pressure within the system. While remote and hybrid hearings remain available to complainants, the majority of hearings were in person, with an average split of 60% in person hearings and 40% hybrid or remote hearings. Appeals The report also contains useful information on appeals. The WRC was notified of 300 Labour Court decisions relating to appeals from WRC decisions and recommendations in 2025. Of these, 68% were upheld, 17% were varied and 15% were overturned. Mediation Mediation continued to play an important role in early dispute resolution. Pre-adjudication mediation exceeded 1,000 cases for the first time, with 1,034 mediations taking place in 2025. The overall resolution rate was 54%, while telephone mediation achieved a particularly strong 69% resolution rate. The report also notes that a further 515 cases were withdrawn following engagement with the mediation service before adjudication, meaning that a significant number of disputes concluded without the need for a hearing. Inspections and Enforcements Inspection and enforcement activity remained substantial. The WRC closed 5,145 inspection cases in 2025, involving 5,596 workplace inspection visits. Contraventions of employment law were identified in 1,775 cases, and €1,578,924 in unpaid wages was recovered. The WRC also conducted 223 prosecutions, 183 of which resulted in successful outcomes, giving an 82% success rate. This represented an increase of 27.5% in the number of prosecutions brought by the WRC. AI and Other Developments The report is notable for the WRC's increasing focus on AI and digital capability. In 2025, the Legal Division published guidance on the use of AI before the WRC in response to a growing trend of parties using AI to draft submissions. The report emphasises the importance of human oversight and the need to ensure that submissions remain accurate and relevant. The WRC also commenced work on an internal AI-powered chatbot trained on WRC documentation. In addition, the WRC published a ten-year anniversary case report highlighting 50 employment and equality cases. The report is also significant in that it reflects the WRC's tenth anniversary year and the publication of its Strategy Statement 2025 to 2027, titled "A Decade of Impact - A Future of Fair Work and Equality". The WRC also established its new Knowledge, Information and Advisory Division in 2025, reinforcing a broader strategic emphasis on dispute prevention, accessibility, training and early intervention. Take Away for Employers Overall, the 2025 Annual Report reflects a year of increased complaint volumes, continued growth in mediation, significant inspection and enforcement activity, and a clear strategic focus on digitalisation, AI and dispute prevention. For employers and practitioners alike, the report provides a useful indication of the areas most likely to generate disputes and the operational pressures currently affecting the WRC.   Links: annual-report-2025.pdf   Authors –Ethna Dillon and Laura Killela 28 May 2026 Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie

The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) recently awarded €28,000 in  Lukasz Swiercz v Lidl Ireland GmbH (ADJ-00059764) as compensation to an employee who was found to have been discriminated against on the grounds of disability, arising from a failure by his employer to provide reasonable accommodation. The employee brought the claim under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015 (the “Acts”). Facts: The Complainant, a Warehouse Operative, had been employed by the Respondent since October 2013. In early 2025, he was diagnosed with a hernia and subsequently obtained a medical certificate. On or around 10th March 2025, the Complainant submitted a medical certificate confirming that he was fit to return to work, subject to “light duties only, no heavy lifting”. Despite providing this medical certification, the Respondent did not permit the Complainant to return to work. The Complainant told the WRC that the Respondent effectively required him to be “fully fit” before resuming duties. Over a period of several months, the Complainant repeatedly sought to return to work and requested referral to Occupational Health. However, there was a delay of approximately four to six months before the Respondent arranged an Occupational Health assessment. During this time, the Complainant was not in receipt of any income or social welfare, as he had been certified fit to attend work. The Complainant contended that there were a number of roles or modified duties available within the warehouse which would not involve heavy lifting. It was the Respondent’s evidence that no reasonable accommodation could be implemented for the Complainant. The Respondent denied that any suitable “light duties” existed and maintained that the role of Warehouse Operative was inherently physical in nature. Decision:  The Adjudicator, Elizabeth Spelman, noted that it was accepted that the Complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Acts and therefore enjoyed the protections of the Acts. The central issue for determination was therefore whether the Respondent had discharged its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation. The Adjudicator was critical of the Respondent’s approach, noting in particular that no evidence of a meaningful assessment of possible accommodations had been put before her e.g. risk evaluations or relevant correspondence. The Respondent’s interpretation of the Complainant’s medical certificate, that “light duties” meant the Complainant could only carry out a desk job, was rejected by the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator also noted the significant delay in referring the Complainant to Occupational Health for approximately four to six months and noted that the Respondent seemed to rely on a broad approach that lighter duties were not facilitated. The Logistics Manager, who gave evidence, stated that “the position is that we do not facilitate lighter duties”. In addition, the Adjudicator noted with concern that the Respondent sent a letter to the Complainant in April 2025 outlining its issues regarding the Complainant’s absence from work and what they regarded as a failure to follow the absence process (by failing to provide sick certificates) and threatening disciplinary action notwithstanding that the Complainant had provided a medical certificate stating that he was fit to return to work. The Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent had failed to properly consider or implement reasonable accommodation and that this failure amounted to discrimination on the grounds of disability. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate how the accommodation sought would be unduly burdensome and noted the scale of the Respondent’s business. The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant €28,000, approximately one year’s salary. This took into account the Complainant’s financial loss of six months’ pay and, in particular, the Respondent’s conduct as follows: failure to engage in any meaningful way regarding Occupational Health until the Complainant instructed a solicitor unexplained delay in organising the Occupational Health appointment letter sent in April 2025 indicating that the Complainant may be subject to disciplinary action failure to assess comprehensively what reasonable accommodation could be implemented broad-brush position in refusing reasonable accommodations to Warehouse Operatives. Takeaway for Employers: This case provides a useful reminder of the importance of meaningful engagement with employees seeking to return to work following illness or injury. It also highlights the obligation on employers to  properly assess requests for reasonable accommodation on a case-by-case basis and to seek appropriate guidance from Occupational Health at an early stage. Employers should avoid adopting a blanket approach/policy and engage in a timely and meaningful manner with employees with a disability. They should also document their assessment of any requests for reasonable accommodation, and any assessments carried out in consideration of such requests. Link- https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/april/adj-00059764.html Authors – Tara Kelly and Jenny Wakely   29th May 2026 Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie