General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes sweeping changes to civil procedure. These include placing judicial review on a statutory basis and expanding lower courts’ monetary limits. A new discovery regime would also be introduced. These proposals substantially implement recommendations from the Review of the Administration of Civil Justice Review Group Report. Our Public, Regulatory & Investigations team discusses the proposals.

What you need to know

• Proposed overhaul of the judicial review mechanism, aimed at increasing transparency and tightening criteria for relief.
• Traditional discovery procedures would be abolished and replaced with a new “production of documents” regime.
• New case conduct principles would emphasise efficiency, with strict new rules on adjournments and discontinuance after 6-months of inactivity.
• Circuit Court monetary limit would increase from €75,000 to €100,000 and District Court from €15,000 to €20,000.

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 represents a significant overhaul of Irish civil procedure. The Civil Reform Bill 2025 adopts many of the recommendations set out in the 2020 Review of the Administration of Civil Justice (the Kelly Report). The Kelly Report:

• Identified fundamental issues with existing discovery processes
• Called for statutory thresholds for judicial review, and
• Advocated for comprehensive multi-party litigation procedures

While the Kelly Report advocated for multi-party litigation procedures, it is notably absent from the Civil Reform Bill 2025. The Civil Reform Bill 2025 also diverges from the Kelly Report in key areas, by introducing stricter timelines and more radical jurisdictional changes than originally envisaged.

Proposed as the Civil Reform Act 2025, this legislation seeks to tackle longstanding concerns about delay, costs and inefficiencies in the civil justice system. The reforms also respond to public and political criticism. In particular, critics argue that judicial review has been used to obstruct critical infrastructure projects, housing developments and water treatment facilities through ’not in my back yard’-type (NIMBY) challenges. The heightened thresholds and stricter timelines are designed to prevent delays in nationally significant projects. At the same time, access to justice and legitimate scrutiny of public decisions is preserved.

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes fundamental changes across five key areas:

• Document production
• Judicial review
• Civil procedure
• Court monetary limits, and
• Sheriff regulation

These reforms would fundamentally alter how civil cases are conducted. The new case conduct principles would require parties to identify issues early and conduct proceedings expeditiously. They would also be required to minimise costs and use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, where appropriate. This reflects the Kelly Report’s emphasis on active case management. Courts would take a more active role in case management, with enhanced powers to enforce compliance.

Judicial review

Statutory framework

Part 3 of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes to establish a comprehensive statutory framework for judicial review. This would directly implement the Kelly Report’s recommendation to modernise judicial review orders.

The traditional orders of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition would be abolished and replaced with quashing, mandatory and prohibiting orders, respectively.

An application for judicial review would be able to seek one or more of the following remedies:

• An order to quash a decision
• An order to mandate the performance of a duty
• An order to prohibit action being taken
• A declaration that a decision infringed the applicant’s rights or is unconstitutional
• An order relating to damages, and/or
• An injunction restraining a public body from carrying out a decision pending determination

Jurisdictional shift

Perhaps the most significant divergence from the Kelly Report is the structural change to jurisdiction. Under Head 9 of the Civil Reform Bill 2025, judicial review applications related to immigration, citizenship and asylum are proposed to be initiated in the Circuit Court rather than the High Court. This change would also apply to particular decisions of public bodies listed in Schedule 2. The proposal aims to relieve the pressure on the High Court lists and expedite the resolution of routine administrative challenges. This would free up High Court resources for more complex matters. Schedule 2 bodies include planning authorities, whose decisions on housing and infrastructure developments have been subject to lengthy judicial review challenges.

Stricter criteria for granting relief

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes to introduce stringent requirements before courts might grant judicial review remedies. These requirements closely align with the Kelly Report’s recommendation to retain the leave requirement. However, the threshold would be raised from an “arguable case” to a requirement to show substantial grounds and a reasonable prospect of success.

Courts would only grant remedies where:

• The respondent acted unlawfully
• The applicant suffered harm or prejudice
• Any error of law, or procedural error, was material to the decision
• The interests of justice required the remedy, and
• Granting the remedy provided significant benefit to the applicant

In considering whether an error was material, the Court would be required to assess whether a different decision would have been made in the absence of that error. The Court would also consider whether that different decision would have placed the applicant in a materially better position. The materiality requirement reflects the Kelly Report’s emphasis on elevating the threshold for judicial review. The aim is to ensure that judicial review is confined to cases where unlawfulness has caused genuine prejudice and where relief will provide a tangible benefit. This would help prevent challenges based on the kinds of minor technical deficiencies that have been criticised for delaying essential housing and infrastructure projects without addressing substantive unlawfulness.

Timelines for applications

Applications for leave to apply for judicial review would need to be filed within eight weeks from the date when grounds for the application first arose. This contrasts with the current three-month time limit. The provision would be subject to limited exceptions. The Court would be able to extend this period only where it was satisfied that:

• There was good and sufficient reason to do so
• The circumstances were outside the applicant’s control or could not reasonably have been anticipated, and
• The applicant would suffer serious harm or prejudice if an extension was not granted

The Court, however, would not be able to extend the period beyond 16 weeks.

These strict timelines implement the Kelly Report’s recommendation for strengthened procedural timetables to better manage delays. They are intended to ensure timely resolution of challenges to administrative decisions. This approach promotes legal certainty for public bodies and developers while preserving access to justice.

Appeals restricted

A determination by the Circuit Court or the High Court of an application for leave to apply for judicial review, or of an application for judicial review, would be final. An appeal to the Court of Appeal would only be available with leave of the Circuit Court or the High Court, respectively. Leave could be granted where the court certified that its decision involved a point of law of exceptional public importance. The court would also need to be satisfied that it was in the public interest for an appeal to be heard.

The restriction on appeals aligns with the Kelly Report’s recommendation to limit appeals in judicial review cases to points of exceptional public importance. The aim is to prevent prolonged litigation while ensuring important legal questions can be considered.

Document production

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes to abolish existing discovery, inspection and production procedures, including:

• Order 31 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
• Order 32 of the Circuit Court Rules, and
• Order 45B of the District Court Rules

This mirrors the primary recommendation of the Kelly Report, aimed at curbing the excessive costs associated with modern data-heavy discovery. The Kelly Report identified fundamental problems with the existing system. It found that the broad ‘Peruvian Guano’ test of relevance leads to excessive, disproportionate and costly discovery requests that burden the parties and courts. In their place, parties would be required to produce:

• All documents they intended to rely on at trial
• Documents relevant and material to the outcome that other parties would reasonably rely on, and
• Documents necessary for the administration of justice

Claimants would be required to provide documents within 28 days of serving the claim form. Respondents would have 42 days from the date their defence is served. Courts would consider cost, procedural efficiency, administrative burden, proportionality, fairness and relevance when directing production. Parties would not be able to rely on documents at trial unless produced in accordance with these requirements, unless the court gives permission.

Expanded court monetary limits

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes a significant increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the lower courts. The District Court monetary limit would increase from €15,000 to €20,000. The Circuit Court monetary limit would increase from €75,000 to €100,000. These increases align with the Kelly Report’s recommendations to shift more cases to lower-cost jurisdictions and ease High Court caseloads.

The Kelly Report emphasised that many cases currently brought in the High Court could be more efficiently and affordably resolved in lower courts, with significant cost savings for the parties. By raising jurisdictional thresholds, the Civil Reform Bill 2025 would channel a substantial volume of claims into the District Court and Circuit Court. Legal costs and court fees in those courts are typically lower, which would improve access to justice for parties with moderate-value claims. This would also allow the High Court to focus resources on more complex, high-value litigation.

Pre-Action protocols

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes to empower the Minister for Justice to prescribe “Pre-Action Protocols” via regulations. While the Kelly Report recommended these be governed by Rules of Court, the Civil Reform Bill 2025 opts for a more direct, legislative approach to mandate engagement before litigation commences.

Enhanced case management

Adjournments

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes that Courts would not grant adjournments, extensions or stays unless satisfied there was sufficient reason and that doing so would be in the interests of justice. Party agreement alone being insufficient. This reflects the Kelly Report’s support for active case management to prevent parties from delaying proceedings by agreement without judicial oversight. Where case conduct principles are not adhered to, but an adjournment is granted, courts would be required to impose penalties reflecting the extent of non-adherence and its impact on court efficiency. This implements the Kelly Report’s recommendation for stronger sanctions to enforce compliance with procedural obligations.

Discontinuance

Where an action has not yet been set down for trial and no steps have been taken for six months, a party would be able to serve notice of intention to seek deemed discontinuance. If no steps were taken within 28 days, the party could apply for discontinuance. Courts would be able to set aside discontinuance within 3 months, only where there was good and sufficient reason, and circumstances were outside the party’s control. The Civil Reform Bill 2025 takes a harder line on delay than the Kelly Report. While the Kelly Report recommended automatic discontinuance after 30 months of inactivity, the Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes a “deemed discontinuance” mechanism after 6 months of inactivity, followed by a 28-day warning notice. This represents a significant tightening of the rules to prevent case stagnation.

Comment

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 proposes a fundamental shift towards efficiency in Irish civil litigation, implementing some of the core recommendations of the Kelly Report. Placing judicial review on statutory footing would be particularly significant. It would provide a comprehensive statutory framework that would impose:

• Stricter timelines
• A higher threshold for leave to bring the proceedings, and
• Clear, more stringent, criteria for obtaining relief

These proposed judicial review reforms arrive amidst significant public and political debate regarding the impact of ‘NIMBY’ litigation on critical national housing and infrastructure projects. The increased monetary limits of the lower courts would shift a significant volume of cases to those courts. This could reduce costs and delays. It would also free up the High Court to deal with other cases, as recommended by the Kelly Report. The new document production regime should streamline and minimise the cost and burden of disclosure. The enhanced case management powers would require parties to progress cases expeditiously or face penalties.

However, notable gaps remain regarding litigation costs as the Civil Reform Bill 2025 does not establish statutory cost scales as advocated by the Minority Report within the Kelly Report. Pre-action protocols, despite being mentioned in the Kelly Report as important for clinical negligence and complex litigation, are not explicitly detailed in the Civil Reform Bill 2025.

For more information on the Civil Reform Bill 2025, contact a member of our Public, Regulatory & Investigations team.

People also ask