Civil Reform Bill: Key Procedural Changes for Civil Litigation in Ireland

What is changing?

1. Discovery

The Bill proposes to abolish the existing discovery regime and replace it with a statutory duty of early document production. Parties would be required, without awaiting a request, to produce documents that:

• they intend to rely on at hearing
• are relevant and material to the outcome of the proceedings, including documents the opposing party would reasonable rely upon: and
• are necessary for the administration of justice

Production would be front loaded; Claimants, automatically, within 28 days of issuing proceedings and Respondents within 42 days of delivering a defence, subject to extension. Documents not produced in accordance with the regime cannot be relied upon at trial without leave of court.

Courts would retain supervisory powers, with proportionality, cost, burden and fairness expressly embedded in the statutory test. Non-party production remains, but subject to the same relevance and necessity criteria, with explicit regard to the burden placed on third parties.

Recent judicial commentary in has highlighted the practical limits of the traditional discovery model, drawing attention to the scale and cost of modern discovery exercises and cautioning against duplicative or purely formal disclosure that adds little to the fair resolution of proceedings. The Bill effectively places this more pragmatic approach on a statutory footing, reinforcing that necessity is a substantive threshold and that production should be directed towards genuine material rather than duplication.

2. Case Management and Procedural Discipline

Part 4 of the Bill introduces case conduct principles, broadly similar to those applied in the Commercial Court, requiring parties and courts to conduct litigation in a manner that is just, expeditious and cost efficient. Parties would be expected to narrow issues early, engage constructively and consider alternative dispute resolution where appropriate.

Adjournments would no longer be routine even where consented to by all parties and would only be granted where justified in the interests of justice, with potential sanctions for noncompliance.

The Bill also introduces a structured mechanism to address inactive proceedings. Where no procedural step has been taken for a period of 6 months, a party may initiate a process leading to a deemed discontinuance of the action, subject to limited safeguards. While parties may seek to explain inactivity arising from matters outside their control, such as awaiting third party material.

For personal injury claims, Plaintiffs would be required to set out full details within their originating document, of any relevant preexisting medical history and clearly distinguish them from the injuries alleged to arise from the incident in dispute. 

A number of related procedural measures sit within this broader case management framework. The Bill proposes to replace the various existing forms of originating documents with a single, standardised ‘claim notice’. It also places a number of existing practices on a clearer statutory footing, including the requirement for court approval of settlements involving children, the authority of practice directions and judicial case management powers and the scope of court rules to address aspects of evidence in civil proceedings. In addition, it enables the expanded use of preaction protocols.

Separately, it proposes to limit the duration of newly registered lis pendens notices unless extended by court order, which is aimed at reducing long standing encumbrances on property where proceedings are not actively progressed.

3. Judicial review

For the first time, the Bill proposes to codify judicial review in primary legislation. Standing would be limited to persons directly affected with a sufficient interest and the leave stage is expected to adopt a higher ‘substantial grounds’ threshold more generally.

Most significantly, relief would only be available where a series of cumulative conditions are met, including proof of unlawfulness, materiality, harm to the applicant and a finding that granting relief is in the interests of justice having regard to both private and public interests.

4. Jurisdiction Monetary Limits

The Bill proposes to increase monetary limits in the lower courts:

• District Court: from €15,000 to €20,000.
• Circuit Court: from €75,000 to €100,000, with removal of the separate personal injuries cap.

This is likely to result in a greater volume of claims being determined at Circuit Court level. For many parties, including insurers and public bodies, this may enhance accessibility and proportionality. Circuit Courts sit throughout the country, procedures are generally more streamlined, with shorter hearings and lower procedural cost exposure.

In parallel, the Bill revises the differential costs regime. High Court costs would generally only be recoverable where damages exceed approximately €85,000 or where the court determines that High Court proceedings were reasonable owing to the exceptional nature of the case.

The Bill also tightens timelines for the delivery and adjudication of costs. A party awarded costs would be required to furnish its bill of costs 3 months following the conclusion of proceedings. Failure to do so would result in the loss of entitlement to interest on those costs, with interest generally running only from the date costs are agreed or formally adjudicated.

Why does it matter?

Taken together, the proposals reflect a consistent policy objective to move away from open ended, adversarial and often late stage procedural disputes, towards earlier clarity, proportionality and judicial control.

For insurers and public bodies, the reforms aim to improve predictability of process, reduce unnecessary disputes (particularly around discovery) and align costs more closely with the value and complexity of claims.

Beyond the immediate procedural changes, the Bill is likely to have a number of practical knock on effects for those managing claims and disputes:

• Earlier retrieval and review of medical records, incident reports and related materials.
• Mandatory disclosure of preexisting conditions may assist earlier assessment of causation and attribution
• Adjournments and procedural inactivity will be more difficult to sustain, increasing the need for active progression of proceedings
• Earlier visibility of core evidence may support earlier and more informed settlement assessment, particularly in lower to mid value claims. 

We are monitoring the progress of the Civil Reform Bill closely and will continue to track developments as the legislative process unfolds. If you would like to discuss how the proposed reforms may affect claims further, our team would be happy to assist.

For further discussion on any items in this article, please reach out to any member of the Eversheds Sutherland (Ireland) Healthcare team - Emma Meagher, Brian Connolly, Róisín Ní Chathmhaoil or Helen Smith