Ireland does not have a general class action regime that allows a member of a group to bring a claim on behalf of the group. However, there are a number of avenues available for certain types of collective action.

Representative Actions

The Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 (the Representative Actions Act) allows representative actions to be brought by a designated qualified entity on behalf of consumers against traders for breaches of specified EU and Irish consumer laws. This legislation transposes the European Union’s Representative Actions Directive 2020/1828 (the RAD). It was commenced on 30 April 2024 and is applicable to domestic or cross-border infringements of the relevant consumer laws occurring after 25 June 2023.

Representative actions may only be brought before the Irish courts by qualified entities designated by either (i) the Irish Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment; or (ii) another Member State.. To date, three qualified entities have been designated in Ireland – the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), Digital Rights Ireland and noyb. The qualified entity may seek either injunctive relief (on an opt-out basis) or redress measures (on an opt-in basis).

The impact of this new consumer regime is difficult to assess at this stage. To date, only one action has been initiated under the Representative Actions Act and that is at an early stage. As that case unfolds, we expect to see the court make rulings on various procedural points and start to interpret the Representative Actions Act, all of which will inform the development of collective redress in Ireland.

GDPR Mechanism

The GDPR and the Irish Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) provide for a form of representative action that may be brought before the Irish courts for breach of a data subject’s data protection rights. A data subject may mandate a not-for-profit body, active in the area of data subject rights protection, to bring proceedings on their behalf seeking injunctive relief or compensation. This mechanism has not been widely used and is likely to become obsolete given the availability of representative actions for GDPR breaches under the Representative Actions Act.

Alternative Mechanisms

For claims outside the scope of the Representative Actions Act or the GDPR, claimants must litigate individually or rely on limited procedural mechanisms for multi-party litigation. These include:

• Representative actions: Order 15, rule 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) permits one or more persons with “the same interest in one cause of action or matter” to bring or defend proceedings on behalf of interested persons, seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief. However, damages cannot be sought under this procedure, it does not extend to tort claims, and the courts have interpreted the “same interest” requirement narrowly.

• Joinder of parties: Order 15 of the RSC allows related actions to be combined, enabling all persons with a proper interest in a dispute to participate and be bound by any resulting judgment. The right of action must derive from “the same transaction or series of transactions”, which can limit the scope. Similar procedural facilities are available in the District and Circuit Court, but joinder may not be practical where large groups of parties raise different issues and claims..

• Test or pathfinder cases: Parties may apply for case management orders to facilitate a specific case or selected cases to be decided and binding on other claimants, at least in relation to agreed issues. However, this mechanism may not be suitable for the determination of issues of quantum and the pathfinder system generally requires buy-in from all parties.

• Consolidation or coordination of hearings: Order 49, rule 6 of the RSC permits the courts to consolidate proceedings on application, even without universal consent. The court considers whether (i) there is a common question of law or fact of sufficient importance; (ii) consolidation would yield a substantial saving in cost or inconvenience; and (iii) there is a likelihood of confusion or miscarriage of justice. Unlike joinder, consolidation does not make every claimant a party to the same proceedings; rather, one claimant represents the class and the judgment binds class members. The court also retains an inherent jurisdiction to direct that cases be heard simultaneously.

Despite the availability of these mechanisms, multi-party actions have been relatively uncommon in Ireland. The absence of a generally applicable framework for such actions, the lack of third-party litigation funding, and the “loser pays” costs regime have all acted as deterrents.

Typically, significant mass claims such as those against retail banks, consumer claims, and medical products litigation, have been pursued individually, often as large numbers of separate claims before both the lower and superior Courts.

For clarity and brevity the responses to the remaining questions focus on the new Representative Actions Act regime.

There was historically no universal legislative framework in Ireland allowing class actions similar to those found in other jurisdictions. None of the alternative procedural mechanisms described in response to question 1 were designed to provide an overarching legislative framework for class actions and, as a result, mass claims would typically have been pursued as individual proceedings.

This changed with the enactment of the Representative Actions Act, commenced in April 2024, transposing the RAD and introducing representative actions for breaches of EU and domestic consumer laws specified in the legislation (as described in further detail in response to question 1). The transposing legislation was designed to provide for a strong consumer-protection regime.

Historically, class actions, as understood in other jurisdictions, did not exist in Ireland. This changed with the enactment of the Representative Actions Act in 2023 which introduced a collective redress regime applicable to breaches of certain consumer laws. To date, only one class action has been launched under the Representative Actions Act since it was commenced in April 2024. This is a claim brought by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties against Microsoft alleging GDPR breaches.

Likewise, the type of representative or multi-party actions described as alternative mechanisms in response to question 1 have been relatively uncommon in Ireland. The absence of a generally applicable system for multi-party actions, and the absence of third-party litigation funding, have contributed to this. The fact that claimants are also on risk for costs (the ‘loser pays’ principle applies) has also acted as a deterrent.

As the collective redress regime has only recently been introduced in Ireland, it is not yet clear what types of claims will become the most prevalent. To date, the only claim brought in Ireland under the Representative Actions Act relates to alleged breaches of data privacy laws by Microsoft.

While the sample size remains small for these cases in Ireland, it is anticipated that, in line with trends across the EU, such claims may initially be focussed on data privacy claims, particularly because the three QEs designated to date in Ireland have a significant focus on civil liberties and data privacy. Over time, we may see other types of consumer claim, for example under the revised Product Liability Directive (PLD), which is due to be transposed by December 2026, give rise to class actions in particular in light of the expanded definition of ‘product’ in the PLD.

Outside of the RAD claims, mass claims have been taken in Ireland relating to a number of product liability and consumer-related claims, often arising as ‘follow-on’ claims in the wake of adverse findings by regulators or national consumer agencies. Most prominently, cases have been taken in relation to tracker mortgage products, medical devices, automotive emissions, construction materials, insurance products and the advertising of other consumer products.

There is no general legal definition of class actions in Ireland.

At section 2(1) of the Representative Actions Act a “representative action” is defined as an action for the protection of the collective interests of consumers that is brought by a qualified entity as a plaintiff on behalf of consumers to seek – (a) an injunction in accordance with section 23, or (b) a redress measure in accordance with section 26.

Where a breach of consumer law is alleged to have occurred, a qualified entity can initiate litigation on behalf of consumers under the Representative Actions Act. The breach must be alleged to have occurred on or after 25 June 2023 by a “trader”, as defined in the Representative Actions Act. Notably, these can arise from both domestic and cross-border infringements. Claims may be brought even if the alleged breaches have ceased before the proceedings are commenced.

Prior to the introduction of the Representative Actions Act, mass claims have arisen in Ireland from findings of national regulators. Most notably over recent years, the Central Bank of Ireland’s (CBI) findings in relation to tracker mortgage products offered by retail banks operating in Ireland gave rise to a large number of proceedings.

While the practical impact of the new collective redress regime in Ireland is yet to emerge, it is anticipated that findings by regulators in respect of breaches of consumer law may give rise to collective redress claims. However, the prevalence of such follow-on class actions is likely to be dependent on the availability of third-party litigation funding which is currently largely prohibited in Ireland.

The Representative Actions Act applies to breaches of the relevant consumer laws occurring on or after 25 June 2023. Consistent with the RAD (which lists 66 separate pieces of EU legislation spanning a variety of sectors) the range of EU and Irish consumer laws specified in the Representative Action Act is broad, covering Irish consumer rights and protection laws, as well as areas such as data protection, and other laws affecting technology, financial services, energy, retail, telecommunications, ecommerce, food and beverage, and travel.

The Representative Actions Act applies to breaches of the relevant consumer laws occurring on or after 25 June 2023. Claims are limited to being brought against ‘traders’ so defendants must be/have been acting for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession.

Only qualified entities can bring a representative action on behalf of consumers under the Representative Actions Act. Organisations may apply to be designated as a qualified entity by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This designation can be revoked and is reviewed at least every five years. This status can also be challenged by traders in proceedings.

To be designated, a qualified entity must meet the following criteria:

• it is a legal person with 12 months of public consumer protection activity;
• it can demonstrate, as its main purpose, a legitimate interest in protecting consumer interests under the relevant legislation listed in the Representative Actions Act;
• it is non-profitmaking and solvent;
• it is independent and not influenced by persons other than consumers; and
• it makes publicly available certain information, including confirmation of compliance with each of the above matters, together with its source of funding, its organisational, management and membership structure, its statutory purpose (if any) and its activities.

At the time of writing, Ireland has three designated qualified entities all of which are designated to bring both Irish and cross-border claims: (i) the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (the ICCL); (ii) noyb – European Centre for Digital Rights; and (iii) Digital Rights Ireland.

The Representative Actions Act provides for cross-jurisdictional claims at EU level; these claims can be taken by cross-border qualified entities across the EU. Therefore, cross-border qualified entities designated in other EU Member States have the ability to bring cross-border claims in Ireland. Similarly, Irish designated cross-border qualified entities can bring claims elsewhere in the EU.

The Representative Actions Act provides for cross-jurisdictional claims at EU level; these claims can be taken by cross-border qualified entities across the EU. All three of Ireland’s qualified entities are designated to bring cross-border representative actions.

The Representative Actions Act contemplates more than one class of consumer being identified by a qualified entity as being affected by a particular infringement, the subject of a representative action. However, it does not provide for any specific threshold conditions which must be satisfied by consumers to qualify for any such class, nor any limit on the number of consumers falling within an individual class.

A number of provisions require a qualified entity to provide the court with information about ‘the class or classes of consumers’, for example those affected by the alleged infringement or entitled to benefit from a particular redress measure. However, it remains to be seen how the Irish courts will assess that information in practice.

The Representative Actions Act does not prescribe any criteria or threshold that consumers must meet to qualify as a particular class to bring a representative action. Qualified entities must provide the court with information about the class or classes of consumers affected by the alleged infringement and, in the context of seeking redress, the qualified entity must provide the court with information about the class or classes of consumers entitled to benefit from such measures (for inclusion in the court order).

As the legislation does not provide for specific requirements or limitations in relation to sourcing the classes for representative actions, that guidance will develop as the courts deliver rulings and judgments on the initial claims brought under the new regime. As the Representative Actions Act is based on EU law, we may also see references from the Irish courts to the CJEU for guidance on the interpretation of provisions of the RAD and guidance from the CJEU in response to references from other EU member states will also be instructive.

The Irish High Court is the designated court for hearing representative actions under the Representative Actions Act. The proceedings brought by ICCL in May 2025 were admitted to the Commercial List of the High Court (the Commercial Court), which operates with strict case management rules. Given the likely value and complexity of claims under the Representative Actions Act, we expect the Irish courts to endeavour to determine these actions as expeditiously as possible and it is likely that will predominantly be in the Commercial Court.

Any findings of the Irish High Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal or, in circumstances where the case is deemed to address a matter of general public importance, further appealed to the Supreme Court. It is possible, given the novelty of the Representative Actions Act and proceedings thereunder, that so-called “leapfrog appeals” will be granted, which would allow litigants to bypass the Court of Appeal and have any appeal heard directly by the Supreme Court.

Jurisdictional issues may arise as cross-border claims come before the Irish courts. It is too early to know what type of jurisdictional obstacles will emerge in the case of representative actions. We may see, for example, defendants seeking to separate classes on the basis that certain classes should more properly bring proceedings in local jurisdictions.

Under the Representative Actions Act, the process for consumers’ participation in representative actions depends on the type of relief being sought.

Where redress measures are sought, consumers must opt in to the proceedings by notifying the qualified entity of their desire to be represented. The consumers must sign a declaration that they have not previously received compensation from the same trader for the same cause of action and confirm that they have been informed that receiving compensation as part of the representative action will preclude them from receiving any other compensation from the same trader for the same cause of action in the future. This can be done at any time until the representative action is deemed admissible by the court.

Where the relief sought is purely injunctive, it is taken by the qualified entity on an opt-out basis. There is no requirement for consumers to do anything to be represented in that type of action.

Under the Representative Actions Act, the representative action must be brought by a designated qualified entity in the Irish High Court. The qualified entity must provide the court with the following information to allow the court to assess the admissibility of the representative action:

• the sources of funding of the action;
• the nature of the claim and, in particular the nature of the alleged infringement; and
• the class or classes of consumers affected by the alleged infringement.

The court may either deem the representative action admissible under section 19 of the Representative Actions Act or dismiss a representative action that appears to be “manifestly unfounded” based on the information provided by the qualified entity.

Once the representative action has been deemed admissible, the qualified entity, as plaintiff, can initiate the action by issuing a plenary summons against the relevant trader.

The Representative Actions Act permits actions to be brought domestically or cross-border. Qualified entities designated by other EU Member States may therefore bring actions in Ireland. If an alleged infringement affects or is likely to affect consumers in more than one EU Member State, multiple qualified entities may bring a representative action. The qualified entities must nominate one entity to lead the conduct of the action.

Regulations issued under the Representative Actions Act stipulate that the maximum fee that may be charged by a qualified entity to a consumer who wishes to opt in to a representative action is €25.

A series of forms required for the purpose of various procedural steps under the Representative Actions Act are set out in Prescribed Forms Regulations. These are:

• Form 1 – Application for designation as a qualified entity
• Form 2 – Application for a request for a review of refusal or revocation of designation
• Form 3 – Notification by a consumer to be represented by a qualified entity for redress measures
• Form 4/ 4A – Notification by a qualified entity to consumers regarding the determination of admissibility of a representative action for redress
• Form 5 – Notification by a consumer to no longer be represented by a qualified entity for redress measures
• Form 6 – Notification by a qualified entity to consumers of the particulars of any redress measures ordered by the court.

The normal civil procedure rules applicable to the High Court, the Superior Court Rules (RSC), are applied to proceedings brought under the Representative Actions Act. Order 63A RSC, which sets outs the rules applicable to commercial proceedings, will apply to any representative actions that are admitted to the Commercial List of the High Court.

The Representative Actions Act includes specific provisions relating to certain procedural matters. For example, it provides for certain orders to be made regarding the disclosure of evidence to defendants.

The Act also makes specific provision for the reckoning of time for the purposes of the Statue of Limitations. A pending representative action has the effect of suspending or interrupting applicable limitation periods specified in the Statute of Limitations, for consumers concerned by that representative action, from the moment the representative action is deemed admissible until 60 days after the first of the following events occurs: (i) the representative action is dismissed; (ii) the representative action is withdrawn; (iii) the court makes an order for an injunction; (iv) the court makes an order for a redress measure; or (v) the court has approved a settlement of the representative action.

As the first representative action under the Representative Actions Act was only commenced in May 2025, the length of such proceedings remains to be seen. That case is being heard by the Commercial Court, which has strict case management procedures and shortened timelines. Procedural motions are due to be heard by the Commercial Court in June 2026 and the timing of the hearing of the substantive proceedings has not yet been set. Initially, representative actions may take some time to progress through the courts as procedural matters are being considered for the first time. The court’s procedural rulings on those early cases may result in subsequent representative actions being dealt with more speedily.

Under the Representative Actions Act, qualified entities may seek injunctive relief and/or substantive redress measures.

Injunctions – The court may grant an injunction requiring the prohibition or cessation of a certain practice that has been found by the court to constitute an infringement. Such injunctions may be interim or interlocutory in nature. In making such an order, the court may make a declaration that the relevant practice constitutes an infringement and may direct the trader to publish the decision or to publish an appropriate corrective statement. Notably, when applying for an injunction qualified entities are not required to prove: (i) actual loss or damage on the part of the affected consumer; or (ii) intent or negligence on the part of the trader.

Redress measures – The court may order a trader to provide compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement. The court will set a period within which consumers are entitled to benefit from such measures. At the end of a representative action, the qualified entity must provide the trader with a list of consumers eligible to receive redress. Consumers cannot receive compensation more than once for the same cause of action against the same trader. However, redress measures are without prejudice to any additional remedies available to consumers under any enactment or EU acts that were not the subject of that representative action. Consumers who did not notify the qualified entity of their desire to be represented are not entitled to benefit from the redress granted.

No specific requirements are set out in the legislation as to how damages are to operate for representative actions. As such, damages are expected to operate in the ordinary way, with the calculation of quantum based on restitution, particularly in cases of financial loss. As set out in response to question 23, there are certain circumstances in which punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded by the Irish courts, but damages will typically be limited to a measure of the loss actually suffered by the plaintiff (or, in this case, the class of plaintiffs) as a result of the liability of the defendant.

The rules regarding punitive/exemplary damages will remain the same for collective actions as for standard individual proceedings in Ireland. While these are relatively rare, they can be awarded in certain circumstances, amounting to more than the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff(s) where there has been a particularly egregious or deliberate breach of the plaintiffs’ rights. It is yet to be seen how the courts will use judicial discretion in this area to award further damages to classes of plaintiffs, particularly in cases where the amounts being awarded to individual claimants (such as in cases of particularly large classes) are relatively minor.

No particular judge or group of judges is currently assigned to collective redress claims. In the High Court a single judge will be assigned to hear the matter and deliver the judgment. It is anticipated that many of these cases will be heard before the Commercial Court and the judges assigned to that that list have particular expertise in commercial disputes. Appeals heard in the Court of Appeal would likely be heard by a panel of three judges.

No. Collective redress proceedings in Ireland under the Representative Actions Act will only be determined by judges and will not be subject to juries. Jury involvement in civil proceedings in Ireland is extremely rare.

Yes. Under the Representative Actions Act, in a representative action for redress measures, qualified entities and traders may: (i) jointly propose a settlement to the court; or (ii) be invited by the court to reach a settlement.

Settlement is subject to court approval.  Traders must inform relevant consumers of any approved settlement. Once approved, the settlement is binding on the qualified entity, the trader and the individual consumers concerned. Redress measures provided in an approved settlement do not limit additional remedies available to consumers under any enactment or EU acts that were not the subject of that settlement.

If refused, the court will hear the representative action.  The court will refuse to approve a settlement if it:

• is contrary to any other enactment or EU act;
• includes conditions which cannot be enforced; or
• contains terms which appear to the court to be unfair.

The Representative Actions Act requires qualified entities to engage in pre-litigation consultation with traders when seeking an injunction. Separately, solicitors practising in Ireland have a statutory obligation, under the Mediation Act 2017, to advise their clients of mediation as an option prior to issuing proceedings.

The court will only authorise a representative action to proceed when agreement is not reached where, following consultation and reasonable efforts to consult or the trader’s refusal to consult, the qualified entity remains of the opinion that the trader is continuing the infringement and at least two weeks have passed since the trader received the request to enter into consultations.

Third-Party Litigation Funding

Third party litigation funding (TPLF) is generally prohibited in Ireland (see further detail in response to question 30) and therefore is not an available funding option.

‘After the Event’ insurance

‘After The Event’ insurance may be provided by insurers to cover a plaintiff’s potential exposure to a defendant’s legal costs (as well as the plaintiff’s own expenses) if the plaintiff loses a case and an order for costs is made against them. It generally involves a high premium, which is usually only payable by the plaintiff if they win their case. This type of policy (as the name implies) is taken out after the event giving rise to the claim has taken place. However, it is not clear if insurers will offer such policies to qualified entities or members of the class.

Contingency and Conditional Fee Arrangements

Ireland does not permit contingency ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements where a solicitor’s fee is calculated as a percentage of the damages recovered. Section 68(2) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 expressly prohibits solicitors from charging fees for contentious work that are calculated as a percentage or proportion of damages or monies recovered. Solicitors may act on a pro bono basis, or on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis whereby they agree not to charge a professional fee if their client is unsuccessful but charge normal fees in the event of success provided they do not charge a percentage/ proportion of damages or money recovered. However, such fee agreements are uncommon in practice.

Fees charged to consumers who wish to opt-in

As explained in response to question 18, the qualified entity is entitled to charge a fee to consumers who wish to opt in to a collective redress action. However, the maximum fee that may be charged by a qualified entity to a consumer is €25. This limited sum will likely not cover the legal costs of pursuing a High Court action and, therefore, does not appear to represent a practical funding option, although it could in theory be used to fund the case.

Yes. At present, third-party litigation funding is largely prohibited in Ireland by the torts of champerty and maintenance under the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1634.  Technically, champerty and maintenance are criminal offences at common law but there is no record of a prosecution in modern times.

Limited exceptions to these prohibitions exist, for example, where a third-party funder has a direct or legitimate interest in the outcome of the action (such as a shareholder or creditor of a company involved in the proceedings). In addition, in 2023, third-party funding of international commercial arbitration was recognised as a limited statutory exception to the general prohibition and enacted in the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023. At the time of writing, this provision has not yet been commenced.

The Representative Actions Act requires qualified entities to disclose information about their sources of funding for their actions. While the legislation does not expressly provide for qualified entities to access third-party funding, it does, however, state that a representative action for redress may be funded by a third-party “insofar as permitted in accordance with law.”

The Irish Law Reform Commission is due to publish its recommendations on third-party litigation funding later this year.

In addition, civil legal aid is not available for representative actions. Funding for such actions is subject to specific restrictions under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995.

The three principal emerging business risks likely to attract class action or collective redress litigation in Ireland are as follows.

1. Data Privacy and Artificial Intelligence. Qualified entities registered in Ireland have focused predominantly on data privacy, reflecting the concentration of major technology companies headquartered in the jurisdiction. GDPR compliance and the use of personal data in artificial intelligence models are likely areas of focus. Data privacy proceedings are expected to extend beyond the technology sector, with financial services providers and medical technology firms also facing potential challenges. This is consistent with trends observed in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, and with the first representative action proceedings brought in Ireland.

2. Cybersecurity Breaches. Given the data-centric focus of qualified entities registered in the State, cybersecurity breaches represent a significant emerging risk. As such incidents increase in frequency, particularly affecting consumer-facing corporations, companies will need to ensure robust security systems and effective breach-reporting mechanisms are in place.

3. Product Liability. The Revised Product Liability Directive (Directive 2024/2853) expands the definition of “product” in a manner likely to generate representative actions in Ireland, particularly in the medical devices, software and technology space, mirroring increasing litigation volumes in other jurisdictions.

It is difficult to identify particular trends in class action litigation in Ireland, as only one representative action has been brought under the new legislation to date. Given its novelty, meaningful trends have yet to emerge.

In the absence of a sophisticated claimant bar adopting the new regime, and based on the qualified entities designated so far, the initial focus of representative actions is likely to be on data privacy issues, some of a cross-border nature, with claims brought in Ireland by classes from across the EU.

Prior to the new legislation, mass claims in Ireland typically arose from regulatory findings or judgments in “test cases”, with proceedings pursued after favourable High Court judgments in cases with similar fact patterns, largely in consumer law, product liability, and financial services. Representative actions may follow similar trends.

As qualified entities test the mechanics of the Representative Actions Act, a shift towards opt-out injunctive proceedings may emerge, enabling larger claims. Where injunctions are sought against ongoing conduct, expedited hearings may also become more common, consistent with existing Irish civil procedure.

Qualified entities may also seek to deploy AI tools to identify claims and claimants.

We anticipate that the most significant legal developments to arise over the next 12 months will likely relate to procedural rulings made in the first representative action proceedings.

Otherwise, the report of the Law Reform Commission on third-party litigation funding is expected shortly. It remains unclear whether the introduction of such funding will be recommended by the LRC for representative actions.

Collective redress claims of this kind have not yet been commenced in Ireland, but this may be an area that will give rise to such claims in the future. For example, so-called “green claims” may well give rise to collective redress claims, particularly in light of the recent transposition into Irish law of the Green Transition Directive by the European Union (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition) Regulations 2026 (SI 124/2026). These regulations are set to commence on 27 September 2026.

While ESG collective redress claims have not yet arisen, ESG claims have been frequently litigated in the environmental. planning and infrastructure sectors in Ireland, resulting in the development of a sophisticated claimant bar and a body of jurisprudence in this area. While it remains to be seen whether a qualified entity with a focus on this area will be designated, ESG claims may arise in the near future.

Proposals for reform

In 2020, a committee chaired by former President of the High Court, Mr Peter Kelly, published the Review of the Administration of Civil Justice Report, which recommended introducing a comprehensive multi-party action procedure in the High Court and the Circuit Court. In 2022, the Irish government published its Implementation Plan on Civil Justice Efficiencies and Reform Measures. One of its aims was to enact a comprehensive and effective multi-party action procedure in Ireland, similar to the Group Litigation Orders in the United Kingdom. The resulting Civil Reform Bill is currently being progressed by the Minister for Justice, but it is unclear to what extent this legislation will reform the law on multi-party action procedure.

Third party-litigation funding

The main practical impediment to class actions in Ireland, in particular opt-in claims for redress, in Ireland is the prohibition on third-party litigation funding. As outlined in response to question 29, the Irish Law Reform Commission’s is due to issue a report later this year with recommendations following its consultation on third-party litigation funding.