BHSM LLP

INSIGHTS | LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION | BY ELAINE DYKE The amendment to the Circuit Court Rules, brought about by S.I. No. 107 of 2024 CIRCUIT COURT RULES (ORDER 36) 2024 and which came into operation on 29 March 2024, is a welcome development which brings the Circuit Court Rules largely into line with Superior Court Rules by removing reference to decrees and judgments being in force for a period of 12 years. Prior to the amendment Order 36 provided: (9) Every decree of the Court, and every judgment in default of appearance or defence, shall be in full force and effect for a period of 12 years from the date thereof, and an execution order based on any such decree or judgment may be issued in the Office within the said period, but not after the expiration of 6 years from the date of such decree or judgment without leave of the Court. An application for such leave shall be made by motion on notice to the party sought to be made liable. (10) If, at any time during the period of 12 years, any change has taken place, by death, assignment or otherwise, in the parties entitled or liable to execution, the party claiming to be so entitled may apply to the Court on notice for leave to issue execution, and the original decree or judgment may be amended so as to give effect to any order made by the Court on the application. (13)  An execution order may, on the application of the party entitled thereto, be renewed in the Office at any time during the currency of the decree or judgment in respect of which it was originally issued for the period of not more than 1 year from the date of such renewal, provided that the said decree or judgment be in full force and effect for the period for which the said execution order is so renewed. The fact of the renewal of any such order shall be indorsed thereon and the order shall be re-sealed. An order for execution so renewed shall have effect and be entitled to priority according to the time marked thereon as the date of its original issue. Thus, an Execution Order could only be renewed for the period of time left to run in respect of the original Order for Possession. The position was illustrated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Noonan in IL&P v Duffy & Duffy [2017] IEHC 760 where he held, on appeal from the Circuit Court, that where less than a year is left to run in respect of a Circuit Court order for possession, an execution order can be renewed but only for the period left to run of the 12 years. At paragraph 8 of his judgment, he states “The order makes clear however that the execution order cannot be renewed for a period longer than that during which the original judgment is in force. Thus, if an application for renewal were made 11 years and 6 months from the date of the judgment, the execution order could only be renewed for a period of 6 months.” In the more recent case of Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Doyle & Ors [2023] IEHC 662 Mr Justice Simons, affirmed the Circuit Court’s refusal to grant leave to execute and noted “Order 36 of the Circuit Court Rules precludes both the issuance of, and renewal of, an execution order after the expiration of 12 years from the date of the relevant decree or judgment. The judgment which it is sought to enforced in the present case is dated 10 November 2008. It follows that the application for leave to execute must be refused.” The amended Order 36 provides: (9) An execution order based on any decree of the Court or judgment in default of appearance or defence may be issued in the Office within 6 years from the date of such decree or judgment. After the expiration of 6 years from the date of such decree or judgment, an execution order may be issued with the leave of the Court. An application for such leave shall be made by motion on notice to the party sought to be made liable. (10) If, at any time after the making of a decree or judgment in default referred to in rule 9, any change has taken place, by death, assignment or otherwise, in the parties entitled or liable to execution, the party claiming to be so entitled may apply to the Court on notice for leave to issue execution, and the original decree or judgment may be amended so as to give effect to any order made by the Court on the application.” While the amendment to the Circuit Court Rules brings the procedure in that jurisdiction into line with that of the High Court in terms of removing the 12-year time limit, there remains a divergence. As noted by Mr Justice Noonan in Duffy, the Circuit Court Rules “do not require an application to court on notice to the defendant where a renewal is sought provided that the original execution order was made within 6 years, as it was in this case.” In contrast Order 42, provides that where 6 years have elapsed since the judgment or order, an application to the court will be required. In the Circuit Court, provided that the Execution Order has issued within 6 years of the judgment or decree, it can be renewed in the office without the necessity of an application to the court. However, in an environment of many loan sales, an application to court will be required in accordance with Order 36, rule 10 on the basis of a change of the party claiming entitlement to execute whether that change occurs before or after the expiry of 6 years from the date of the judgment. It should also be borne in mind that the change to the Circuit Court Rule does not alter the continued necessity in both the Circuit Court and the High Court to explain all the delay from the date of the judgment where an application is made for leave to issue execution after the expiry of 6 years. How we can help If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Elaine Dyke in our Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department on [email protected] / +353 (0)1 440 8310. This article is for general information purposes.  Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances.  Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE | INSIGHTS | BY SIOBHÁN WHELAN The deadline date for filing a Residential Zoned Land Tax (RZLT) return is on or before 23 May 2025. Who is the Liable Person The owner of the relevant site on 1 February 2025 is the liable person for filing the RZLT return. Notably a wide definition is accorded to the ‘owner’. It defines the owner as including: the registered or deemed registered owner, a person, other than a mortgagee in possession, who, in his or her own right or as trustee or agent for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or would if the land was so let, and any other person whose interest in the land entitles them to develop the land. This definition would include developers with contractual rights to develop the land. If there is more than one owner of a relevant site then only one return needs to be filed by a Designated Liable Person on behalf of all of the owners. What land does it apply to? Where land is zoned for residential use and is serviced with essential infrastructure sufficient to enable housing to be developed then it will be deemed a “relevant site” and subject to RZLT. Local authorities have been charged with the task of drawing up the RZLT maps of the land which is being proposed will be subject to the tax and these maps are set to be published annually. Owners are required to review these maps to confirm if their land is subject to the tax. RZLT is a self-assessed tax and the owner is responsible for valuing the lands accurately. Only relevant sites which met the criteria on or before 1 January 2022 will be included in the RZLT map in 2025. After that date, land that met or meets the relevant criteria will be subject to RZLT in the third year after the year it came within the scope of the tax. The rate of the levy is 3% of the market value of the relevant site. Interest, penalties and surcharges may apply should the Relevant Person not comply with their obligations. Land excluded Land excluded from the remit of the tax include land zoned which are either residential or a mixture of residential and other uses, are authorised developments used to carry on a trade or profession, liable for commercial rates and provide services to residents and adjacent residential areas, and sites designated as a derelict site and subject to the Derelict Site Levy. While residential properties are excluded from the scope of the tax there is a distinction however for residential properties where the gardens and yards enjoyed with the residential property exceed 1 acre (0.4047 hectares) and are liable for Local Property Tax (LPT). In these cases, while they are not liable for RZLT, the owner of the property will still be required to register for RZLT if their property has been included on the RZLT final map. Will remain a charge against the property Where an owner fails to pay the tax, underpays or fails to register for RZLT then tax and interest will apply at a rate of 8% per annum and it will remain a charge against the property. It is a self-assessment tax but in instances where the land is largely undervalued then a surcharge may be applied. A vendor of a property liable for RZLT will not be able to complete the sale of a property deemed a relevant site until all outstanding liability is paid, including accrued interest and any penalties. A Purchaser’s solicitor will look for confirmation of the relevant site as having been registered for RZLT and any liabilities paid up to date, similar to the current revenue LPT system in place. How we can help If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Siobhan Whelan in our Real Estate Department ([email protected] /+353 (0)1 440 8339). This article is for general information purposes. Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

INSIGHTS | INSOLVENCY & CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING | BY SEAMUS ENNIS On 7 May 2025, Mr Justice Michael Quinn delivered Judgment for the High Court wherein the question of the High Court’s jurisdiction to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings was considered. Background Mercer Agencies Limited (in Administration) (the “Company”) is a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and had its registered office in County Down, Northern Ireland.  The Company engaged in the wholesale supply of decorations, garden furniture and garden trellises with its principal place of business being Northern Ireland.  A large portion of the Company’s debtors were incorporated / lived in the Republic of Ireland and the largest single debt was owed to the Company by Rath-Wood Home and Garden World Limited (“Rath-Wood”), which had its registered office in Carlow.  Arising from a deterioration of trade and ensuing financial difficulties, the Company entered administration on 28 November 2024 when Scott P. Murray and Ian Davison, of Keenan Corporate Finance Limited, Belfast, acting as joint administrators (the “Joint Administrators”) were appointed pursuant to the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (“the 1989 Order”). At the time of administration Rath-Wood owed the Company $1,499,399.17. Following their appointment, efforts were made by the Joint Administrators to secure a degree of co-operation with Rath-Wood to commit to a repayment plan. As recovery of the debt and securing stock owned by the Company would be critical to the objective of achieving the best possible result for creditors of the Company, the Joint Administrators felt it may become necessary to bring proceedings for recovery of the debt. In order to commence legal proceedings in the State, the Joint Administrators required their appointment, and resultant powers, to be recognised by the Courts of the State. Hence, an ex parte application was brought before Quinn J of the High Court for an order recognising the following: the entry of the Company into a process of administration pursuant to the 1989 Order the appointment of joint administrators Scott P. Murray and Ian Davison, of Keenan Corporate Finance Limited, Belfast as joint administrators (“the Joint Administrators”) the powers of the Joint Administrators to bring or defend any action or legal proceedings in the name of and on behalf of the Company pursuant to s. 627, Table 1, Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Companies Act 2014, in a manner analogous to Article 6 of Schedule 1 of the 1989 Order, 2, and the power of the Joint Administrators to collect and gather in the property of the Company and for that purpose to maintain such proceedings as may seem to them expedient in accordance with s. 624(2) of the Companies Act 2014, which power corresponds to the power contained in Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1989 Order Pre Brexit Position If administration of the Company occurred prior to Brexit, an application of this nature would not have been required. Council Regulation 1346/2000, which entered into force on 31 March 2002, and the recast regulation of 20 May 2015, EU 2015/848 (the “Regulations”), provide for recognition throughout the European Union (with the exception of Denmark) of insolvency proceedings opened in member states, and any orders made in the course of those proceedings. Accordingly, the appointment of the administrators under the 1989 Order and their powers would have been recognised by the State without further formalities, subject to satisfaction of certain basic conditions under the Regulations. For 18 years the Regulations governed recognition of insolvency proceedings as between the United Kingdom and the State. However, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union on 31 January 2020, the Regulations no longer govern recognition in this State of insolvency proceedings instituted in the United Kingdom, including administrators appointed under the 1989 Order, and the Court was required to consider this application without reference to any direct precedent.  The Court was however aided by a number of cases concerning non-European Union states. Post Brexit Requirements for Recognition The Court had particular regard for the Judgment of Ms Justice Laffoy in Re Mount Capital Fund Limited (In Liquidation) and Another [2012] IEHC 97, where Joint Liquidators appointed by the High Court of Justice of the British Virgin Islands sought the aid of the Irish High Court for the purpose of recovering the books & records and assets of the company that lay within the jurisdiction of the Irish High Court. In the first instance, Laffoy J found that the Court does have inherent jurisdiction to recognise insolvency proceedings outside the European Union. Laffoy J’s judgment is informative for insolvency practitioners and solicitors as same clearly outlines the issues to be taken into consideration by the Court when an insolvency practitioner is seeking to have non European Union insolvency proceedings recognised by the State: 1. Equivalence In Re Mount Capital Fund, the liquidators adduced evidence as to the equivalence of approach to the winding up of companies under the Insolvency Act 2003 of the British Virgin Islands (“the BVI Act”) with the approach adopted in this jurisdiction under the Companies Act 1963 and amending legislation. Laffoy J. was satisfied that the liquidators had shown a prima facie case for the conclusion of equivalence between s. 245 of the Act of 1963, which the liquidators proposed to invoke if given recognition, and the corresponding provision, s. 284, of the BVI Act. 2. Legitimate Purpose In addition to equivalence, Laffoy J found that a Court should have due consideration for the underlying purpose of the application to recognise proceedings: “I consider that the Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to give recognition to insolvency proceedings in jurisdictions outside the European Union. However, I consider that, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, the Court should be satisfied that recognition is being sought for a legitimate purpose. I believe that a legitimate purpose has been demonstrated in this case, in that the objective of the liquidators is to seek to obtain relief of the nature provided for in s. 245 of the Act of 1963.” With Laffoy J’s principle considerations of equivalence and legitimate purpose firmly in the mind of Quinn J, he proceeded to examine the relevant provisions of the 1989 Order alongside those concerning examinership under Part 10 and winding up under Part 11 of the 2014 Act. In doing so, Quinn J observed that although differences between the respective provisions exists, this does not imply a lack of equivalent jurisdiction in matters of corporate insolvency overall, nor does it suggest that recognition is being sought for anything other than a legitimate purpose in carrying out the statutory duties of the insolvency office holder: “The purpose of this application is to ensure that insofar as it may be necessary for the Joint Administrators, in the performance of their statutory duties of realising assets for the benefit of creditors, to take any action, whether by way of legal proceedings or otherwise, in the State they may do so without encountering delay associated with establishing their standing to do so on behalf of and in the name of the Company in administration. This is clearly a legitimate purpose, again having direct equivalence with the functions of a liquidator appointed under Part 11 of the Act of 2014.” Accordingly, Quinn J was satisfied to make the Orders referred to above. Conclusion As can be seen, recognition applications for non European Union insolvency proceedings are not a new phenomenon,  however, the removal by Brexit of what was effectively automatic recognition (subject to the satisfaction of a few basic conditions) for insolvency proceedings instituted in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will inevitably give rise to an increase in the number of applications for recognition being brought before Irish Courts by UK companies. In a similar fashion, insolvency proceedings commenced in this State will require the recognition of UK Courts where insolvency practitioners intend on exercising their powers in the UK.  That Quinn J had no precedent to refer to in Re Mercer Agencies Limited is indicative of both the benefit of the Regulations for member states and, also, the increased considerations for insolvency practitioners in Ireland and the United Kingdom who intend on having their proceedings recognised in each other’s jurisdictions. How We Can Help BHSM’s Insolvency & Corporate Restructuring department is particularly noted for its contentious expertise and court experience, including court liquidations, appointments of provisional liquidators, examinerships and receivership.  Should you have any queries or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Sarah O’Toole ([email protected]) or Seamus Ennis ([email protected]). This article is for general information purposes. Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

INSIGHTS | PRIVATE CLIENT | BY MICHELLE MCARDLE With housing stock in short supply and the cost of home renovations consistently increasing, it has become difficult for purchasers to fund both the purchase of a property and the renovations it may need to bring it up to modern standards. The introduction of the Local Authority Purchase and Renovation Loan allows the Local Authority for the first time to lend funds for both the purchase and renovation of properties. What is it? This is a new local authority loan which is being introduced to fund the purchase and renovation of certain properties. Am I eligible? This scheme is open to first time buyers or “fresh start” purchasers (i.e. people who are divorced or separated and have no interest in the family home, or who have undergone personal insolvency or bankruptcy arrangement or proceedings). You will need to meet the existing local authority mortgage lending eligibility criteria, which has income limits. It is also necessary that your tax affairs are in order to avail of the loan, including that Local Property Tax is paid up to date. What properties are eligible? As the Local Authority Purchase and Renovation Loan acts as a bridging loan while the works are carried out, with the renovation portion being repaid once the Vacant Property Refurbishment Grant is paid, it is essential that the property is eligible for the Vacant Property Refurbishment Grant. The basic requirements are that the property needs to have been built prior to 2008 and be vacant for 2 years or more, and not purposely or unreasonably left vacant. The condition of the property then needs to be assessed to decide if the proposed project is viable for the scheme, given its value and the works that would be necessary. Funds The Local Authority will carry out a cost assessment of the work required and this will form the basis of the loan. The value at the end of the renovation works cannot exceed the existing Local Authority Home Loan price and loan limits – in Dublin for example, the limit is €360,000. One key consideration is that the owner will need to make up any shortfall between the loan amount and the renovations cost. You may be eligible for an SEAI grant on top of the loan if the works will improve the energy efficiency of the building. The Local Authority Purchase and Renovation Loan, as it comes on-stream in the coming weeks, is a significant expansion of the existing local authority loan structure and has the potential to bring a significant number of vacant and/or derelict properties back into use. How we can help If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Michelle McArdle in our Real Estate Department on [email protected] / +353 (0)1 440 8313. This article is for general information purposes.  Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances.  Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

INSIGHTS | LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION | BY CILLIAN SIMPSON The law of Defamation in Ireland is currently governed by Article 40 of the Constitution, common law and by the Defamation Act 2009 (the “2009 Act”). Article 40 of the Constitution states that the Government shall endeavor to vindicate “the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen”. In a bid to put defamation on a more robust statutory footing in Ireland, the Defamation Act 2009 (the “2009 Act”) was enacted. Under the 2009 Act, Defamation became a statutory tort and is defined in Section 6 of the 2009 Act as; “the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person) and defamation shall be construed accordingly.” In the Spring of 2023, the Government proposed a significant overhaul of the Defamation laws in Ireland. The proposals were advanced on foot of the Department of Justice’s Report of the Review of the Defamation Act 2009 (the “Report”). The Report which was published in 2022 recommended a number of reforms to the 2009 Act. The proposed reforms under the General Scheme of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2023 (the “Bill”) would seek to modernise the Defamation legislation in order to address shortcomings of the 2009 Act together with societal shifts in recent years. In September 2023, the Joint Committee on Justice (the “Joint Committee”) published its report on Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the General Scheme of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill which addressed some of the key updates contained in the Bill but also some of the main concerns, which will be outlined below. Key Updates Abolition of Juries in Defamation Actions Head 3 of the Bill proposes the abolition of juries for High Court Defamation actions. The accompanying explanatory note states there is a “general consensus amongst the submissions that the role of juries in High Court Defamation cases should be reformed”. In contrast, the Joint Committee recommended an alternative avenue in which juries should be retained for the purpose of making findings in fact and or to make findings with regard to an award of damages but ultimately the measure of such an award would remain with the judge presiding over the action. The “Serious Harm” Test A second key proposal in the Bill is the proposed introduction of a Serious Harm Test. Heads 4 – 6 of the Bill introduces several different categories of Defamation actions. These Defamation categories cover actions concerning public authorities, corporate bodies and “transient” retail Defamation. The Bill specifically states that the Test will not permit an action to be brought unless the complainant can demonstrate that they have or are likely to suffer serious harm as a result of an allegation. The Joint Committee has agreed with this recommendation and suggested that all Defamation cases should apply the serious harm test so as to align the Irish legislation with the UK legislation governing Defamation. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPPs”) Under Head 23, the Bill proposes measures which will combat SLAPPs. A SLAPP is an action which intends to intimidate, censor or silence a critic by placing undue pressure through vexatious litigation, by a powerful entity or individual until that critic deserts their opposition or criticism. Under the Bill, it is proposed that a Defendant in a Defamation action could apply to the court for summary dismissal of the proceedings on the basis that the proceedings are a SLAPP. If the Court determines that the proceedings constitute a SLAPP, the Plaintiff could be held liable for the Defendant’s costs in the proceedings and furthermore, the Court may award damages to the Defendant for any harm suffered as a result of the SLAPP. Defences The Bill proposes to reform and update the available defences in a Defamation action. Heads 12-14 outline that the defences include absolute privilege, qualified privilege and honest opinion. The Bill proposes to extend the definition of absolute privilege under Section 17 of the 2009 Act to cover fair and accurate reports of public proceedings in certain international Courts or from specified other states. The Bill proposes to extend the scope of the qualified privilege under Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the 2009 Act, to protect fair and accurate reports of the press, documents covered by the Courts, governmental departments, local authorities, police commissioners of countries other than Ireland, and EU member states. The Bill also proposes an amendment to Section 20 of the 2009 Act subsection 2(a). The current law requires that at the time a statement is published, the Defendant believed in the truth of the opinion or, where the Defendant was not the author of said opinion or statement that the Defendant believed it to be true. The Bill proposes to amend the requirement to “the defendant genuinely held the opinion or, believed that the author genuinely held the opinion”. Conclusion The Bill will be returned to the Oireachtas for further consideration before it becomes a published Bill and may be the subject of further debate. In this regard, the Oireachtas will need to strike a balance between the proposals contained within the Bill and some dissenting views and recommendations outlined by the Joint Committee in their Report. A consideration in finalising the Bill may be the impending enactment of the Anti-SLAPPs Directive by the EU. If the Anti-SLAPPs Directive is enacted prior to the Bill being finalised, the Anti-SLAPPs measures proposed in the Bill, which represent some of the more significant and topical proposals, may be amended to align more closely with the EU’s Directive. Defamation law is a rapidly evolving landscape which requires ongoing scrutiny from stakeholders and Government bodies to ensure that the law is not lagging behind societal shifts, particularly in the area of technology and telecommunications, or enacted legislation in other jurisdictions. Whilst the Bill has yet to be finalised and published, with the timeframe for same remaining somewhat unclear, it is apparent that the Government is actively seeking to keep legislative pace with this fast-moving area of law. How we can help If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Cillian Simpson in our Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department ([email protected] / +353 (0)1 440 8343). This article is for general information purposes. Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

INSIGHTS | LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION | BY SHANE GRACE The Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 (the “Act”) which was signed into law on 11 July 2023 was commenced by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (the “Minister”) on 30 April 2024. This is a significant development as Ireland has, until now, lacked any provision for multi-party actions and reform has long been called for in this area. Representative Actions The Act introduces a framework which permits a Qualified Entity to bring a representative action before the High Court where a trader has infringed specified consumer legislation. The specified legislation covers a wide range of areas including consumer products, data protection and privacy, medical devices, and package holidays. To be designated as a Qualified Entity, an organisation must apply to the Minister and must meet certain criteria including that: It must be a legal person or public body able to demonstrate 12 months of actual public activity in the protection of consumer interests; It must have a legitimate interest in protecting consumers; It must be a not-for profit organisation; It must be solvent; and It must be independent and must permit its compliance, source of funding and statutory purpose to be made publicly available. Once designated as such, a Qualified Entity is entitled to bring a representative action before the High Court seeking: Redress such as compensation, reimbursement, repair, or replacement; Injunctive relief seeking to stop a trader from continuing to engage in a prohibited practice; or Both redress and injunctive relief. Representative action can be brought against “traders” which the Act defines broadly as any natural or legal person, whether privately or publicly owned, that acts for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession. Under the Act, a consumer wishing to be represented by a Qualified Entity in a representative action must opt-in to that representative action. The consumer must apply to the Qualified Entity and under regulations made by the Minister, the Qualified Entity may charge a maximum fee of €25.00 to be represented by it. Once admitted to a Qualified Entity, the consumer will be bound by the outcome of the representative action. In addition to commencing the Act, the Minister has also published the relevant forms under the Act including applications to be designated as a Qualified Entity and applications to be admitted to a Qualified Entity. Costs Under the Act, consumers who have joined a representative action will, generally, not be liable to pay the costs of the proceedings, whether successful or not. Instead, this falls on the Qualified Entity, which is subject to the standard rule that the “loser pays” in respect of costs. Accordingly, if a Qualified Entity brings an unsuccessful representative action, it may be made responsible for the trader’s costs of that action. The Act also provides that a representative action can be funded by way of third-party funding “insofar as permitted in accordance with law”. The result of this is that representative actions will be subject to the existing laws on champerty and maintenance which prohibit third party litigation funding in Ireland. It remains to be seen how Qualified Entities will fund representative actions and whether this will present an obstacle to consumers exercising their rights through Qualified Entities. The issue of third-party funding in Ireland is another area where reform would be welcome and the Law Reform Commission is due to report on this issue this year. Conclusion The Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 is a potential milestone in Irish consumer protection law. By introducing representative actions, the Act seeks to improve consumers’ access to justice across a wide range of areas. However its success may ultimately depend on which entities will be designated as Qualified Entities and whether the issue of litigation funding will hinder the effectiveness of representative actions as a tool for consumer protection. How We Can Help If you have any queries, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Shane Grace in our Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department ([email protected] / +353 (0)1 440 8300). This article is for general information purposes.  Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances.  Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE | CONSTRUCTION | INSIGHTS | RENEWABLE ENERGY | BY KEITH DOYLE Introduction The Revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (the “Revised Directive”) was adopted by the European Parliament on 12 March 2024 and will be published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union.  Over the next two years Member States of the EU will be required to transpose the Revised Directive into national law. This article looks at what is new in the Revised Directive and how this affects the Irish Real Estate sector. Our buildings account for 40% of the energy consumed in the EU today. The majority of these buildings are older stock, and inefficient in their energy performance. Against this, the EU has set itself the daunting task of fully decarbonizing building stock in the Union by 2050. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive has been a keystone in the EU’s legislative arsenal to confront the challenge of energy efficiency and greenhouse emissions since it was first introduced in 2002, with further recast iterations, notably, in 2010 and 2018. The Revised Directive is the latest such iteration. So what has changed? New Buildings New Standards The Revised Directive requires the implementation of measures to ensure that all new buildings, residential and non-residential, are zero-emission by 1 January 2030. This deadline comes earlier (1 January 2028) for public buildings. Zero-emission in this context means that the building inter alia produces zero on-site carbon emissions from fossil fuels and produces negligible operational greenhouse gas emissions on a day to day basis. Ancillary to this, the Revised Directive includes a requirement that all new buildings will be “solar ready” i.e. engineered to accommodate rooftop PV or solar thermal plant without the need for significant structural alteration. Impact on Existing Stock New buildings aside, the reality is that the majority of existing building stock will remain in place until 2050 (and beyond) and must therefore be addressed in order to meet the stated aim of decarbonization. In order to address that existing inefficient building stock, the Revised Directive paves the way for minimum energy performance standards for non-residential buildings. Member States will be obliged to provide for the renovation of the 16% worst-performing buildings by 2030 and the 26% worst-performing buildings by 2033. For residential buildings, each Member State is set a hard target of reducing average primary energy use in such buildings by 16% by 2030 and 20-22% by 2035.  Within this, Member States are afforded the flexibility to implement specific national measures to achieve these targets, provided that 55% or more of the targeted reduction is brought about via renovation of the worst-performing buildings. Minimum energy performance standards for residential property remain an optional tool, by contrast with their mandatory introduction for non-residential assets.  It should be noted that the Revised Directive does not place a legal obligation on homeowners to renovate. In the case of both residential and non-residential stock, exemptions will be available for classes of buildings that cannot be expected to match the stringent new requirements for energy efficiency, analogous to existing exemptions from the Building Energy Rating (BER) system (e.g. protected / historic buildings). Other Points of Note To facilitate retrofits and upgrades, the Revised Directive introduces Building Renovation Passport schemes to assist with the planning of staged renovation works utilising providers across Member States. Individual Member States will be required to establish Building Renovation Plans detailing the national strategy for decarbonization and specifying plans for unlocking financing, training and availability of skilled labour to make these upgrades accessible and affordable and to accelerate delivery. First drafts of these plans are to be in place no later than the end of 2025. A specific point of note is that fossil fuel powered standalone boilers will no longer be eligible for public support as of 2025. While there is no specific longstop date after which installation of such boilers are to be prohibited outright, Member States may implement binding requirements for maximum emissions, fuel type and/or minimum incorporation of renewable energy sources for heat generation. Energy Performance Certificates (BERs in this jurisdiction) will be enhanced under the Revised Directive, with a number of indicators to be added on energy and GHG emissions, and voluntary indicators made available on charging points for EVs and / or the presence of fixed controls for indoor air quality. Revised BERs will be required in a wider set of circumstances (currently associated primarily with a sale or new letting in particular) to include a simple renewal of an existing lease or where significant renovations are to be carried out to a premises. Of particular note to tenants (and by extension landlords) in the Revised Directive is a highlighting of the risk of so-called ‘renovictions’ – a term coined to refer to the process whereby significant increases in rent following energy efficiency renovations would lead to existing tenants being priced out and unable to remain in situ. Member States are directed to introduce measures to tackle this potential risk. Outside of the legislative dimension it is of course advisable that tenants and landlords broach the subject now and agree cost allocation or a mechanism for determining this in due course. This will pre-empt dispute and help to avoid stakeholders being blindsided when mandatory energy efficiency upgrades and divestment from fossil fuel heating and cooling plant begin to take effect as black letter law hardens in this area. Conclusion For all stakeholders in the Irish Real Estate sector, from developers to investors, funders, landlords and tenants, the Revised Directive is the latest reminder to urgently factor the imperative of high energy efficiency, divestment from fossil fuels and elimination of greenhouse emissions into investment, asset management, funding and leasing strategies. Asset holders who are unwilling or unable to confront this new regime run the risk of stranded assets and distressed disposals in what is now the short-to-medium term. For others, the new regime presents an opportunity to reinvest, retrofit and future proof their assets so that they remain viable and marketable in the years to come. How We Can Help If you have any queries, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Keith Doyle in our Real Estate Department ([email protected] / +353 (0)1 440 8300). This article is for general information purposes.  Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances.  Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE | INSIGHTS | BY ANNE MARIE JENNINGS In an ever-changing and fast-moving commercial environment, tenants are increasingly considering the need for more flexible workspace to cater for changing working practices. Existing premises may not always be suitable or capable of being adapted to cater for these demands. In this article, we consider the options available to a commercial tenant looking to upsize, downsize, move on from impractical space, or just relocate to alternative premises. Assignment An assignment involves the transfer of an entire leased premises, along with the exiting tenant’s rights and responsibilities in respect of same, to a new party (the “assignee”) for the entire remaining term of the lease. The assignee assumes all the obligations of the exiting tenant under the original lease. Common restrictions on assignment contained in commercial leases include: Landlord Consent – the assignment of almost all commercial leases is typically subject to landlord consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld. What is “reasonable” will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. However, in general, so long as the exiting tenant can show that the proposed assignee has sufficient resources and ability to comply with the lease obligations (by offering a guarantee or rent deposit where necessary), the exiting tenant should be entitled to receive consent to the assignment of the lease. Considerations which may justify refusal of consent include existing breaches of lease, the possibility that the assignee might compete with the landlord’s other tenants and the possible devaluation of the landlord’s interest. The lease may also specify criteria to be satisfied. Prohibition on Assignment of Part – most commercial leases will usually include an absolute prohibition on an assignment of part of the premises only. Sub-Leasing A sub-lease is an agreement whereby a tenant (the “sub-lessor”) who holds a lease (the “head-lease”) to a commercial premises rents out all or part of the said premises to a secondary tenant (the “sub-lessee”). This sub-lessee treats the sub-lessor as their landlord. The head-lease remains in place and the sub-lessor remains liable to the head-lessor under the terms of the head-lease as tenant. Common conditions or restrictions on sub-letting in commercial leases include the following: Landlord Consent: as with assignments, almost all commercial leases include clauses which restrict sub-letting without landlord consent, which consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Evaluation of Proposed Sub-Lessee: prior to issuing consent, the landlord generally has the right to request certain information about any proposed sub-tenant and their financial standing. This allows the landlord to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed new sub-lessee and determine whether a guarantee or rent deposit may be required. Any costs incurred by the landlord in respect of the evaluation process will usually be for the account of the sub-lessor, who must discharge same in full. Sublease of Part or Entire: the sub-lease usually must be of the entire premises only – particularly where a property is not designed or intended for multi-lets. The head-lease terms may also contractually allow a partial sub-lease, but subject to certain conditions. Form of Sub-Lease: in the event that the head-lease is terminated (for whatever reason), the head-lessor will be obliged to step into the shoes of the sub-lessor and have a direct relationship with the sub-lessee on the terms outlined in the sub-lease. To protect the head-lessor’s interests in such an eventuality, landlord consent to sub-leasing is usually subject to the terms of the sub-lease being substantially in the same form as the head-lease. The alignment of the terms of the sub-lease and the head-lease is also beneficial from the sub-lessor’s perspective, as it helps to reduce the risk of breaches of the head-lease by the sub-lessee. Rent: a standard commercial lease will typically require the rent in a sub-lease to be the open market rent or the rent then passing under the head-lease, whichever is the greater. This could pose a challenge to subletting if market rents are lower than the rent specified in the head-lease. Direct Covenant: sub-lessees are usually required to enter into a direct covenant with the head-lessor to comply with the covenants and conditions in the head-lease, thereby enabling direct enforcement, if required. Deed of Renunciation: to ensure the sub-lessee does not acquire statutory rights to renew their sub-lease, the execution of a Deed of Renunciation by the proposed sub-lessee would be a standard pre-condition of a sub-lease. Tenants should be aware that while sub-leasing might appear an attractive solution to their under-utilised space problem, it does come with an inherent risk of default. This risk arises because regardless of the wording of the sub-lease, the sub-lessor, as the original lessee, will remain fully on the hook for the rent and all other tenant obligations in the head-lease. As such, if the sub-lessee stops paying rent, causes any property damage or breaches any of the obligations of the tenant under the head-lease, the sub-lessor will remain liable to the head-lessor. Break Option A well-negotiated lease might include an early termination clause (a “break clause”), which allows for early termination of the lease by the tenant on an agreed date / dates (the “break date / dates”).  This is usually subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions (“break conditions”). In order to protect the landlord’s position, break conditions are strictly construed by the courts and, accordingly, must be strictly complied with by a tenant in order to validly exercise their break option. For this reason, it is always strongly recommended that a tenant seek legal advice as to how to validly exercise their break option well in advance of the break date. Common break conditions include: Service of Notice: all break options are subject to service of notice of the tenant’s intention to terminate the lease. The notice period will usually vary from 3 to 12 months prior to the agreed break date, depending on the length of the lease. Failure to serve notice within the specified period or in the specified manner will invalidate the break option. It is therefore strongly advisable for all commercial tenants to diarise the break date and the notice period required, and to review their option at least 12 months before the notice period commences. Break Penalty: break options are sometimes subject to payment of a penalty of circa 6/12 months’ rent to be paid to the landlord prior to the break date. Payment of Rent: upfront payment of all rent, service charge, insurance and other sums due under the lease up to the break date is another common condition of a break option. This payment is usually sought at the time of the service of the break notice, made in full, and strictly in accordance with the term of the lease. For example, if the lease requires rent to be paid quarterly, the full quarter’s rent must be paid even if part of the rent payment relates to a period beyond the break date. Some leases will provide for a partial return of rent that has been overpaid. Vacant Possession: all break options require that the tenant must deliver “vacant possession of the premises free from encumbrances” to the landlord on the break date. The test for compliance with this condition is two-pronged: The tenant must deliver full vacant possession of the premises on the break date. The test of vacant possession is more than just about giving up occupation. It means ensuring on the break date that all tenant stock, machinery, fixtures and fittings are removed where required by the lease or supplemental documents, that keys are returned and that no persons are present in or in occupation of the premises with the express or implied authority of tenant. The premises must be delivered free from encumbrances – this means that the tenant must provide evidence on or prior to the break date that any sub-leases have been terminated and that no statutory renewal rights have been accrued by any sub-tenants. In addition, the tenant must provide evidence that any security registered over the lease has been released by the relevant bank. Compliance with Lease Covenants: the exercise of a break option is also commonly made subject to the tenant’s compliance with the covenants on the tenant’s part in the lease. Lease Surrender If a break option is not on the cards and a suitable sub-lessee or assignee cannot be found, paying out the remaining lease term may be the only viable option left to a tenant seeking to break a commercial lease. In such cases, a tenant may approach the landlord and request a lease surrender in consideration of a reverse charge premium. It is at the discretion of the landlord as to whether or not it will agree to such a surrender. Conclusion In this article we have explored four of the main ways in which a tenant might break its commercial lease. Depending on the terms of a particular lease, however, there may be further options available to a tenant that fall outside of those outlined here. Breaking a commercial lease is never straightforward! Success in a tenant’s lease exit strategy will depend on current market conditions, lease terms, and their chosen approach. Moreover, even with a good relationship between a landlord and tenant, the process of breaking a commercial lease can be as complex as a divorce. If you find yourself in a position where you need to terminate your commercial lease early, please contact our Real Estate team who would be more than happy to guide you through the process. How we can help If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Anne Marie Jennings in our Real Estate Department ([email protected] / +353 (0)1 440 8336). This article is for general information purposes. Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

CORPORATE | INSIGHTS | MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS | BY JOE MCVEIGH Preparing your business for sale is a significant endeavour, one that requires meticulous planning, thorough documentation, and expert guidance. With the optimistic outlook for M&A in Ireland in 2024, there is an anticipation that even more business owners will be looking to sell this year. Whether you’re considering selling in the near future or just contemplating the idea, it’s essential to understand the process and the key players involved. In this article, Joe McVeigh, Partner, Brenda Ntambirweki, Senior Associate, and Sinéad Mannion, Senior Associate, who are all members of the Corporate Team in BHSM, caught up to chat through the process and where to get started if you are considering selling your business. The decision to sell a business isn’t one to be taken lightly. Joe explained that it involves many factors, from market conditions to personal readiness. “The process firstly varies depending on whether you’re selling shares or assets”. When selling shares, the transaction involves transferring ownership of the entire company, including its assets, liabilities, and obligations to the buyer. Joe noted how this approach typically entails a share purchase agreement and may involve warranties and indemnities to protect both parties involved in the transaction. On the other hand, selling assets involves transferring specific business capital, such as equipment, inventory, and goodwill, rather than the entire company itself and it will require an asset purchase agreement. Sinéad emphasised the importance of the business being prepared in advance of a sale in order to maximise the value of a company and to avoid buyers using issues to require potentially costly indemnities. She further advised that sellers should aim to resolve any contentious issues in advance of a sale as any outstanding legal actions or uncertain ownership of assets could cause unforeseen delays. It is also important to focus early on the tax structuring of a deal, i.e. whether any corporate restructuring and tax planning is required in advance. Joe highlighted that several common challenges arise during the preliminary stages of a transaction. He noted that, “maintaining confidentiality throughout the process, especially at the early stage, is paramount. Given the interconnected nature of business communities in Ireland, ensuring that sensitive information remains confidential is crucial to safeguarding customer, supplier, and employee relationships.” Sinéad added that prospective buyers will meticulously scrutinise a business’s legal, financial, and operational areas to assess its value and identify potential risks. Maintaining for example accurate and up-to-date records, contracts, policies, and procedures and being prepared is paramount to instilling confidence in potential buyers and streamlining the negotiation process. “It will minimise the risk of encountering unexpected challenges during the sales process, ensuring a smoother transaction and maximising the likelihood of achieving favourable outcomes for everyone involved.” So, who should you talk to first to get started? In Ireland, the typical approach involves reaching out to financial advisors. As Joe explained, “many businesses initially engage with their accountant or corporate finance advisor, who can analyse the business’s financial performance and create a sales strategy to attract potential buyers.” He noted, however, that it is commonplace internationally for sellers to prioritise consulting with lawyers first. Brenda highlighted this practice, mentioning that during her time working internationally, sellers commonly turned to legal advisors before engaging with other professionals. “This approach was beneficial to sellers, particularly when considering a structure for their transactions, as an early assessment of information would lay the groundwork for what these sellers wanted out of a transaction, whether it was a complete exit or a partial exit with some retention of management control or a retention of a minority interest. Collaborative input from legal advisors and financial advisors in the initial stages of a transaction is key to ensuring that all the preliminary transaction advice is aligned to the client’s objectives before the client approaches the market,” she noted. While the traditional sequence in Ireland often involves contacting financial advisors first, there’s merit in considering the latter option, especially given the intricate legal considerations involved in selling a business. Ultimately, the choice between financial advisors and legal experts depends on individual preferences and the business owner’s specific needs. When asked what advice they have for business owners trying to decide when the right time to sell is, Joe advised to start the conversation with relevant professionals. He likened this process to preparing a house for sale, emphasising the importance of tidying up loose ends and addressing critical aspects of the business. He noted, “with BHSM, it starts with a relaxed conversation where we discuss factors such as customer and supplier relationships, contractual agreements, and property leases”. Sinéad underscored the all-encompassing nature of selling a business by noting that, “from a personal perspective, you should be fully engaged and ready to assess if you can dedicate sufficient time and resources to the process so that it runs smoothly. It’s essentially another job on top of your existing job”. Joe noted how “BHSM acknowledges that selling a business is often a once-in-a-lifetime event for many owners and stressed the importance of careful consideration and planning to ensure a successful transition.” Beyond the technicalities, the emotional aspect of selling a business, cannot be ignored. “For many business owners, their venture is more than just a source of income; it’s a culmination of years of hard work, dedication, and passion. Our role at BHSM extends beyond transactional support; we serve as confidants, guiding business owners through the emotional rollercoaster of letting go of their life’s work.” Brenda noted that selling a business isn’t without its challenges. “It’s crucial to be prepared for the unexpected and to understand that the process may be time-consuming. Transactions for the SMEs that we service tend to have a lead time of about 60 days, but sometimes take longer, and therefore, it is important that clients are aware that negotiations may take longer than expected.” she advised. BHSM guides business owners through the process with expertise and support. Brenda added, “by ensuring that clients are continuously updated and involved at every step of the transaction, our clients are equipped with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions on the transaction, from negotiating a purchase price mechanism that suits the client, to limiting liability for warranties and mitigating risks associated with a business sale or business combination effectively.” Sinéad emphasised that BHSM offers a pro-level experience with personalised approach, which sets them apart. “BHSM prides itself on providing individualised attention and fostering long-term relationships with clients, ensuring they receive tailored solutions and unwavering support throughout the sale process and beyond.” Brenda touched upon the post-sale integration phase, highlighting the importance of seamless transition and continuity for both parties involved. “Whether retaining key employees or aligning business operations, successful integration is critical to preserving the business’s value and ensuring its long-term sustainability. BHSMs service extends to this phase”. Preparing a business for sale is a multifaceted undertaking that requires meticulous planning and expert guidance. With BHSM by your side, you can navigate the complexities of the sales process with confidence and peace of mind. From initial assessment to post-sale integration, BHSM offers comprehensive support every step of the way, ensuring a smooth and successful transition for both buyers and sellers alike. Whether you’re considering selling tomorrow or in three years’ time, it’s never too early to start the conversation. As Joe aptly said, “it’s like cleaning the house before putting it on the market. You need to get your house in order.” If you require any more information, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated team at: Joe McVeigh, Partner, Head of Corporate, [email protected] Brenda Ntambirweki, Senior Associate, [email protected] Sinead Mannion, Senior Associate, [email protected] This article is for general information purposes. Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

EMPLOYMENT & BENEFITS | INSIGHTS | BY RICHARD LEE Introduction On 7 March 2024 the right to request flexible or remote working for employees under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (“the Act”) came into force. Furthermore, the long-awaited WRC Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Right to Request Remote and Flexible Working (“the Code”) was published by the WRC on the same day. The WRC Code of Practice The Code provides guidance to employers and employees when considering or requesting remote or flexible working. It is essential that employers follow a proper process in dealing with remote and flexible working requests. Employees can make a remote working or flexible working request from their first day of employment but must have completed 6 months continuous employment before any arrangement commences. Any request must be made at least 8 weeks before the date the employee wishes to start the proposed arrangement. Remote Working Request To make a request for remote working an employee must set out in writing the following details: Details of the remote working arrangement i.e. how many days and which days requested Proposed start date, and end date, if relevant The reasons for the request Information of the suitability of the proposed remote work location The Code lists a number of potential reasons an employee might consider a remote working request including: reducing daily commute and carbon footprint, optimising quality of life outside of normal working hours; personal or domestic circumstances, neurodiversity or special medical needs or circumstances which could favour a quiet working environment or facilities not always available in the office. Employers have 4 weeks to respond to the request to either: Approve the remote working request, and provide the employee with an agreement to be signed by the employer and employee, or Refuse the remote working request and set out in writing reasons for the refusal, or Provide notice in writing informing the employee that additional time is needed to assess the viability of the remote working request setting out the length of the extension Considering a Remote Working Request Employers should consider a remote working request in an objective, fair and reasonable manner. Employers may consider both the suitability of the role as well as the individual employee’s suitability to work remotely when assessing the request. The employer must also consider the business needs, employee’s needs and requirements set out in the Code in relation to considering a request. The Code includes a non-exhaustive list of considerations for the employer to consider when reviewing whether a role is suitable for remote working and whether the employee is suitable. It is evident from the matters provided that a thorough consideration of the request is required from the employer to ensure they are in compliance with the Act and the Code. Flexible Working Request The Code highlights that flexible working incorporates a wide range of different ways of working, which can include arrangements such as part-time working, job-sharing, term-time work, flexi-time, compressed working hours and remote working. Employees with a child under 12 years old (which includes employees acting in loco parentis to a child), or under 16 years old if the child has a disability or illness can make a flexible working request to provide care to the child. Employees who provide personal care or support to a specified person namely the employee’s child, spouse or civil partner, cohabitant, parent or grandparent, sibling, or someone other than one in the categories already specified who lives in the same household as the employee can make a flexible working request. The specified person must need significant care or support for a serious medical reason. In making a request for flexible working an employee must set out in writing: The form of flexible working being requested, and Proposed start date and end date Employers can request additional information that they may reasonably require about the employee’s child or person they care for to support the request. However, employers should be mindful of their obligations under the GDPR regarding sensitive personal data. Employers must respond within 4 weeks of the request to: Approve the request, including an agreement to be signed by the employer and employee which sets out the details of the agreed arrangement, the start date and duration, of the arrangement, or Provide notice in writing informing the employee that the request has been refused and the reasons for the refusal, or Provide notice in writing informing the employee that more time is needed to assess the request and set out the length of the extension Employers must consider both the needs of the business and the needs of the employee and should refer to the guidance set out in Part 2 of the Code in relation to considering a request for remote working. Termination of a Remote Working or Flexible Working Arrangement Employers can terminate an approved remote or flexible working arrangement if there is a substantial adverse effect on the operation of the business. There are specific reasons set out in the Code in more detail. The processes for making changes and/or returning to the previous working arrangements are also set out in the Code. Abuse of a Remote Working or Flexible Working Arrangement In addition to the above there are reasons for termination if the employer believes that the employee is abusing the arrangement. For remote working only: If an employer has reasonable grounds for believing that an employee is not meeting the requirements of their role while working remotely, an employer can give written notice of termination of the remote working arrangement setting out the reasons for termination and the date for return to the previous working arrangement. For flexible working only: If an employer has reasonable grounds for believing that the flexible working arrangement is not being used for the purpose of caring for a child or providing personal care or support for a specified person, an employer can give written notice of termination of the remote working arrangement setting out the reasons why and the date for return to the previous working arrangement. An employer who proposes to give notice of termination must notify the employee in writing of the proposal to terminate the arrangement including the grounds for terminating the arrangement. The employer must give the employee 7 days after receipt of the notice to make representations to the employer in relation to the proposal and consider any representations made by an employee before deciding whether to give notice of termination. An employee is required to return to their original working arrangement 7 days after receiving notice of termination for abuse of an arrangement. Claims and Compensation A specific breach of the Act may be referred to the WRC, within 6 months of the date of the breach. An Adjudication Officer or the Labour Court on appeal may then direct the employer to comply with specific sections of the Act and/or award compensation to the complaining employee, in the case of flexible working requests, not exceeding 20 weeks’ remuneration and, in the case of remote working requests, not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration. It should be emphasised however that the Code sets out that neither an Adjudication Officer of the WRC nor the Labour Court can assess the merits of any decision made by an employer on the remote or flexible working request, only on the process which led to the employer’s decision. Record Keeping Employers must keep records of flexible working and remote working arrangements taken by employees for up to 3 years. If they fail to retain records, they could be liable on summary conviction to a fine up to €2,500. Conclusion Employers should familiarise themselves with the provisions of the Act along with the Code and should also consider updating their employee handbooks and policies to reflect the new statutory rights. How can we help If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Richard Lee, Partner, in the Employment & Benefits Department of BHSM LLP on [email protected]. This article is for general information purposes.  Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances.  Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE | NEWS | BY MARK HOMAN   BHSM LLP are delighted to announce the appointment of Keith Doyle as Partner (pictured, centre). Keith joined BHSM LLP in 2021 as a Senior Associate and works with our Commercial Real Estate Department, having spent a number of years in the Commercial Real Estate Department of a Big 6 Law Firm in Dublin. Keith has advised on the acquisition, disposal and leasing of a wide variety of real estate assets including development sites; offices; retail centres; mixed use developments; primary care and nursing home facilities; warehousing and logistical units; PRS apartment developments; hotels and wind farm energy projects. Keith also has extensive experience in real estate and development finance transactions, having worked extensively with pillar banks, non-bank lenders and high-profile international funders across a range of medium and high value transactions. Commenting on the new appointment, Mark Homan, Managing Partner at BHSM LLP (pictured right), said: “I would like to congratulate Keith on his appointment. Keith is an excellent practitioner, highly knowledgeable and skilled in the complexities of real estate law. He has gained invaluable experience over his career to date. I look forward to many years of working alongside Keith in serving our clients’ needs.” To find out more about the appointment, please click the link below: Biography – Keith Doyle, Partner, Commercial Real Estate Department Pictured (left to right): Giles G. Smyth (Partner, Head of Commercial Real Estate), Keith Doyle (Partner, Commercial Real Estate), Mark Homan (Managing Partner, Head of Insolvency & Corporate Restructuring)

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE | CORPORATE | NEWS | PRIVATE CLIENT | BY MARK HOMAN BHSM LLP is thrilled to welcome Hannah Kenny and Jessica Russell as newly qualified solicitors in our Real Estate and Corporate Departments, respectively. Hannah and Jessica have recently completed their training at BHSM LLP and officially qualified as Solicitors. Commenting on these appointments, Mark Homan, Managing Partner at BHSM LLP: “I am proud of the hard work and dedication shown by Hannah and Jessica to reach this vital milestone in their careers. Qualifying as a Solicitor is indeed a long journey, and both have navigated that journey impressively. I look forward to many years of collaboration with them.” To learn more about Hannah and Jessica, please follow the links below: Hannah Kenny, Solicitor, Real Estate Jessica Russell, Solicitor, Corporate Photograph (left to right): Mark Homan (Managing Partner), Jessica Russell (Solicitor), Hannah Kenny (Solicitor)

LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION | NEWS | BY MARK HOMAN Seamus has joined BHSM LLP as a Solicitor in our Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department. Seamus advises both corporations and individuals in a broad range of commercial disputes to include contractual disputes, property related disputes and asset recovery matters. Seamus also advises in defamation actions and in litigation related to data and privacy disputes. Seamus advises in insolvency related matters, and he has experience in assisting in insolvency related litigation in the High Court. Prior to joining BHSM LLP, Seamus trained and qualified in a well established Dublin Law Firm that specialises in litigation. Commenting on Seamus’s appointment, Mark Homan, (Managing Partner, BHSM LLP), said: “Seamus is a very welcome addition to the BHSM team. He has a very bright future with us and I look forward to working with him for many years to come.” To find out more about the appointment, please click the link below: Biography – Seamus Ennis, Solicitor Pictured: Seamus Ennis, Solicitor, BHSM LLP (left), Mark Homan, Managing Partner, BHSM (right)