The plaintiff issued defamatory proceedings in August 2023 regarding an allegedly defamatory statement by the second-named defendant, seeking damages (including aggravated and punitive damages) for defamation in respect of a phone conversation in July 2023. There had been a previous incident in August 2021 involving a series of emails sent by first-named defendant to the CEO and Head of Fundraising at the Jack and Jill Foundation. The plaintiff had been a voluntary board member of the Jack and Jill Foundation since 2018. The plaintiff applied to the court pursuant to section 11(2) (c) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957 (as amended) to extend the time from one-year to enable the plaintiff to bring in the earlier allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiff explained in her application that she delayed in issuing proceedings as she did not want to cause trouble for the charity when it was struggling due to issues caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. She also said that home-schooling her three young children during the pandemic had the result that the statements made by the defendants did not receive the consideration they perhaps deserved. Additionally, another question arose from the plaintiff’s application being, as to whether or not in the event that the application was unsuccessful, the plaintiff would seek to rely on the August 2021 publications in support of the plea that the publication in July 2023 was made maliciously. The High Court judge considered the case law for extending the time limit. In Quinn v Reserve Defence Force Representative Association [2018] IEHC 684 the statutory test was set out. The judge was cognisant that the jurisdiction to extent time in defamation cases only applied in exceptional cases. In the Quinn case it was observed that the court is required “to carry out a qualitive assessment of the reason or reasons proffered for the delay. This involves a consideration of the quality and nature of the reason or reasons advanced and a weighing of the respective prejudices.” In another case, he noted Joyce v Mayo Travellers Support Group [2023] IEHC 84 as authority to the effect that in considering the nature of the case, the court should assume that the plaintiff will be successful. The judge was not satisfied that the reasons given by the plaintiff were particularly cogent or persuasive, finding that “even on their own terms either separately or together or when considered in the round, they are unimpressive reasons”. The judge also stated that he was unconvinced that the plaintiff suffered a type of psychological paralysis by virtue of the August 2021 allegedly defamatory statements and that only by July 2023 had the plaintiff recovered her courage enough to issue proceedings. The judge also considered whether because of delay by the plaintiff whether such evidence was available. He raised this because the second defendant claimed that he could not remember the phone call made in August 2021, and the judge found that entirely plausible. Another consideration the court had to factor in was whether it was in the interests of justice in extending the time and whether if refused would that prejudice the plaintiff. Decision The prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the refusal of the application would not significantly outweigh that of the defendants should time be extended in circumstances where the defendants would be obliged “to defend a claim concerning publications in August 2021 issued well out of time and the detail of which was only notified to them in 2024”. Accordingly, the High Court refused the application to extend the time. Catherine Logan v Peter Wilson and David Godwin [2025] IEHC 284.

A Shareholders' Agreement is a private, legally binding contract among a company’s shareholders, designed to regulate management, protect interests, and govern share transfers beyond the scope of the company constitution. In the event of future disputes among shareholders, reference will be made to the providing of this Agreement. Purpose The purpose of having a shareholder’s agreement is: a)It provides a formula to deal with any disputes among shareholders. b)It protects minority shareholders. c)It sets out how shares are sold, transferred, or purchased. This can enable existing shareholders to decide who can buy shares in the company. d)Voting rights can be set out. e)Matters dealing with the management of the company can be included. f)Selling shares: rules can be provided for g)Confidentiality. h)Composition of Board members. In start-up companies where there will likely be many shareholders coming in at different stages, a shareholder’s agreement is very important. The Risk of Not Having a Shareholders’ Agreement A dispute among shareholders can be disruptive to the operation of a business. Where is cannot be resolved internally. Reference can be made to the governing law, The Companies Act, 2014 but that invariable will involve the waring side to bring in solicitors, and it could end up in court, leaving for a judge to decide. That can involve great expense and a huge distraction to the running of the business. Minority shareholders might have little say in the running of the business and might feel isolated. It can be the case that some family run businesses do not see the need for this but as seen from some high-profile business families, when things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong without a shareholders agreement. Timing Ideally when a company is formed, a shareholders agreement should be put in place. When forming a company, a shareholder’s agreement is wise to include. Your solicitor will guide you on this.

The plaintiff worked as a dental assistant for the defendant from 2007 until the date of her accident on 20 June 2016. In the afternoon of the day of the accident, she was carrying out hoovering on a flight of stairs in the defendant’s clinic when she stepped on the hose of the vacuum cleaner, lost her balance, stumbled, fell, and caused an injury to her right ankle. The clinic was located in a building where patients enter through doors that are accessed by using external steps up to the entrance doors, which lead onto a return landing between a short flight of stairs leading up to the reception and treatment room, or leading down the stairs to the waiting room area in the basement The plaintiff produced to the court, photographs of the area where the accident happened. It was part of the plaintiff’s duties to carry our light domestic chores during quiet periods of the clinic. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff started hoovering at the bottom of the staircase, but she had to stop occasionally to check if the phone was ringing. Prior to her accident, she had stopped approximately six times to ascend the stairs to check the phone. On the last of these occasions, on descending stairs to return to the hoover, the arm of the hoover had moved which she did not notice causing her to trip and fall. The plaintiff continued to work but on leaving her colleague noticed her limping and the plaintiff explained what had happened. The plaintiff alleged that her work colleague told her not to complain to their employer as it would only make him annoyed. In evidence her work colleague hotly disputed this conversation. In cross examination, the plaintiff acknowledged that she knew exactly she had left the hoover on the staircase but stated that she was not aware that that the steel arm leading from the nozzle of the hoover, which had been resting against the banister, had fallen over while she had been upstairs checking the phone. She also stated that she had been blinded by strong sunlight coming in from the entrance doors which reached the staircase area. The plaintiff acknowledged that there was CCTV coverage of the area where the accident occurred and was aware that after one month the tape would be cleared. She denied that her solicitor’s claim letter was delayed to pass the one-month period. Questions were put to the plaintiff that several medical attendances made no mention of her stumbling and falling on a hose of a hoover at her place of work. The plaintiff claimed she had so informed the doctors at A&E. It was put to the plaintiff that in a note taken on 23 June 2016, it had been noted that the plaintiff had come for review and had twisted her ankle four days previously and was unable to bear weight on it, or to walk. There was no mention in that note of any hoover. It was put to her that in a further note dated 27 June 2016, the history recorded noted that she had twisted her ankle eight days previously, but again there was no reference to any hoover. The plaintiff stated that she could not explain the omission of those details. She stated that she had definitely told the medical personnel in A&E about the circumstances of the accident when she had first visited it. The plaintiff accepted that she had sent a text to the defendant which stated that she would not be returning to work, as she knew that she could not stand for any prolonged period. She accepted that when she saw Dr. Grant on 23 September 2016, it had been noted that she was “starting new job next week”. The plaintiff stated that that job would not have required her to be standing or walking for the entire day. The plaintiff called supporting evidence by an engineer which pointed out the unsuitability of the area for safe cleaning to be carried out. The defence called the work colleague of the plaintiff who mentioned the practise of cleaning the area during quiet spells. On being asked about what the plaintiff said when they were leaving work that day. The witness asked the plaintiff why the plaintiff was limping. She told the court that the plaintiff said it was from new shoes. She denied saying to the plaintiff not to mention the accident to the employer. The defendant told the court that the first time he was informed by the plaintiff of her injury allegedly caused by the hoover, was in a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor in April 2018. He said the CCTV was long gone from their system. He accepted that when vacuum cleaning the lower flight of stairs, it was necessary for the plaintiff to stop the hoover from time to time and to check the phone. He denied that it was an unsafe place to work. Engineering evidence was given on behalf of the defendant who had carried out a joint inspection of the clinic with the plaintiff’s engineer. He had also carried out a subsequent inspection on his own on 20th November 2025, then he took a further set of photographs showing the upper flight of stairs and the view from the reception area looking down towards that flight of stairs. The engineer stated that in his opinion the system of work that had been in operation at the time of the accident was not an unsafe system. Decision  On reviewing the evidence, the judge said that this was a very unfortunate accident – but that all it was, an accident. The judge did not accept that the workplace was unsafe. He said that under the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005, as amended, an employer is only required to take reasonable steps to prevent an accident that is foreseeable. Consequently, the judge found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant as either the employer of the plaintiff, or as occupier of the premises, in relation to the circumstances of the accident as given in evidence by the plaintiff. The plaintiff case was dismissed. Sharon Walsh v Juniper Orthodontics Ltd High Court [2026] IEHC 99]

It is highly advisable to engage your solicitor to manage the administration of a Will. Your solicitor will ensure the process will proceed promptly and correctly. Most probates proceed without complications, but issues can arise and where they do, your solicitor’s experience is invaluable in dealing with these. Common problems that can arise a)The nominated Personal Representative does not want to take on the responsibility or is unable, perhaps through illness, to do so. In this case your solicitor will apply to the court for a Grant of Administration with Will Annexed, to have the residuary legatee under the Will to administer the Will. In effect to take the place of the personal representative. The ‘residuary legatee' of the Will is the person entitled to inherit the balance of the Will after all creditors and beneficiaries have been paid. b)The Personal Representative breaches their duty or fails to perform their duties. The personal representative of an estate has a fiduciary duty to all of the beneficiaries. This means that they have a duty to preserve all the assets in the estate in good faith and must put the interests of the deceased and the beneficiaries ahead of their own. If the personal representative acts in their own self-interest or otherwise fails to fulfil their duties during the probate process, there are legal remedies available. Your solicitor will advise on these. The court can remove them, and someone else can be appointed to take care of assets and oversee the probate process. c)A Will can be contested. This is commonly where a person believes the Will did not represent the true intentions of the deceased or where they allege the deceased was influenced by another person in making the Will. Some relatives might allege the deceased was not of sound mind when making the Will. This can only be resolved by a court and will delay the final administration of the Will. d)Creditors contest the amount due. Your solicitor will assist the personal representative where it is felt any creditor is seeking more than is believed to be correct. e)Failure to collect all documents relating to the Will including any post sent to the deceased. Failure to do this could result in the non-payment of a creditor or the preferential payment to others. The appointment of your solicitor to manage the probate process is particularly important to ensure everything is done correctly. Where a Will is contested it can become complicated so the experience of a solicitor will save time and ensure no further costly issues arise.

If you suffer injury, whether physical or emotional, from acts of medical negligence, it stands to reason that you can claim for both provided, of course, that you can prove the injuries sustained came about as a direct result of the alleged acts of negligence and the conditions are bonafide. Emotional or psychological distress is as valid a condition as its physical counterpart. Most people are familiar with anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or depression. Sleep disturbance can be another sign of severe emotional distress. These stressful conditions can severely affect your ability to work, maintain relationships and functional normally in life‘s everyday aspects. Some of these symptoms can be temporary while others are long lasting. Can I claim for injuries that are only emotional or psychological following an act of medical negligence ? You can indeed, but you must show that: The injury was caused by the negligence or lack of due care on the part of a medical professional. The emotional injury or condition suffered has been diagnosed and signed off by a qualified medical professional such as a GP, psychiatrist or psychologist. For many years these claims, described as psychological trauma or emotional distress, have been accepted by the Injuries Resolution Board and the courts although, almost by definition, they are harder to establish than physical injuries. It is easy to see how an individual could suffer such emotional trauma or distress following a cancer misdiagnosis or perhaps where a hysterectomy is performed in error. Other claims, not quite as dramatic, can be more difficult to sustain. You will need a strong body of evidence to make a claim for emotional distress as it can be relatively easy to fabricate such a condition. Medical reports will be required particularly from experts along with receipts or invoices for therapy sessions, medication prescribed and the like. As with actual physical injuries, the Personal Injury Guidelines, introduced several years ago by the judges, provide a schedule of compensation payments based on the severity and longevity of the emotional injuries from minor anxiety to severe PTSD and depression. A word of warning. Emotional or psychological injury claims can prove very challenging to establish more than those involving just physical harm. The defendants or their insurance company often tend to minimise or question the seriousness of the emotional trauma suffered by a plaintiff and it may take additional medical expert opinions to establish for certain that your claim for emotional distress is indeed a valid one. There are also timeless involved in bringing these cases so the earlier you engage with your Solicitor the stronger your case will be.

If a person or organisation makes an untrue comment or statement about another person, that person can sue for defamation. In say a work situation where you believed that a colleague did some act or omission that was not permitted regarding their work which might harm the business in some way and you felt obliged to report this to the employer, this would be a privileged statement. In doing so the protection only applies if you honestly believed that the statement you made is true. But if you later discover that you were wrong, and refuse to withdraw or correct your statement, you lose the protection of privilege. Honest Opinion To establish honesty as a defence, there is a heavy onus on the person making the statement to show: The statement was based on facts. The statement was of public interest and made without malice where the party making the statement believed the facts to be true. An example could be where a broadcaster is sued over a statement made on air, the broadcaster must establish that they believed that the statement made was honestly held. Generally, defamatory statements made about a person’s private life would not be a matter of public interest. It could though be harder for persons who have a highly visible public life, like entertainers, who frequently reveal aspects about their private life, to rely on the argument that a defamatory statement about them was not in the public interest and was therefore actionable. Fair & Reasonable Publication A statement made in good faith and about something that is in the public interest may not be defamatory. A court will consider: The seriousness of the allegations If the statement made it clear that that it was about suspicions or allegations, rather than facts. If there were exceptional circumstances that made it necessary to publish the statement If the person who was the subject of the statement was given the opportunity to give their side of events The onus of proof in any of these defences falls upon the defendant who makes the statement. Innocent Publication Innocent publication may apply where a person is not responsible for the statement or the publication of the statement but contributed to distributing the statement in some way. This defence is frequently used by social media companies for defamatory posts made on their platforms. An Apology A swift apology is a good type of defence. It does not wipe away the defamatory statement but will reduce the damages awarded or it might prevent legal proceedings being issued. Offer of Amends The maker of a defamatory statement may make an “offer of amends” in writing to the person who is alleged to have been defamed. That offer of amends will include an offer to make a suitable correction and a sufficient apology. The correction and apology will be published in an appropriate place. The offer of amends may also include an offer to pay compensation or damages. If an appropriate offer of amends is not accepted, that refusal can be used in some cases as a defence to any later legal proceedings. Correction Order A court may issue a correction order, which orders the person who made the statement to publish a correction of the defamatory statement . Injunction The Court can issue an order that prohibits the publication of a defamatory statement. Note though that injunction proceedings are expensive so discuss this with your solicitor before rushing ahead with this relief. Damages A court will consider a number of factors after the defamation has been proven. The court will consider the seriousness of the damage caused by the defamatory statement and what impact it has had on the standing or reputation of the person defamed. In all cases consult your solicitor if you believe you have been defamed.

A case came before the Circuit Court to approve a settlement awarded by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board where a father and his three children were stuck in a toilet at Dublin Airport while their plane was being called for boarding. The mother of the three children, who were aged nine, five and two was outside the locked toilet door trying to console the children. The family were booked on a flight to Spain on a family holiday. Their mother who was outside the toilet was trying to have the flight delayed so not to miss the holiday flight and at the same time to console her distressed children. After two failed attempts by maintenance staff to open the door, the children became more upset. Airport staff had been made aware of their emergency by pulling the emergency cord in the toilet which was the room for adult and child facilities. When firefighters arrived after 50 minutes, the family were told to stand away from the door as they were breaking their way in. The judge acknowledged that the whole experience was very stressful for the young children. The problem with the door was that the inside handle of the door had come off when the family tried to exit. Fortunately, the family eventually made their flight, but their holiday had been marred by their experience at the airport. The PIAB assessed the distress at €21,000 being €7,000 for each child and the judge deemed that as appropriate. Owen Nolan (Best Friend of Ailbhe, Hugh, and Max Nolan) v Dublin Airport Authority Circuit Court (Judge O’Donohue ) 13 February 2026

Medical negligence cases can be particularly lengthy and complex and therefore more expensive than other personal injury cases. Construction disputes are often settled by mediation as are landlord and Tenant disputes. So, could mediation be employed in medical negligence cases? It could and indeed has been for some time. What is mediation all about? It is a voluntary process where a mediator, totally independent of both parties, assists the parties in dispute, typically a patient and hospital, to come to an agreed solution in settling the patient’s claim for compensation against the hospital. In mediation, both parties are involved in any final decision, whereas in a court setting, it is decided by the judge alone. It is a more informal process and preserves the privacy of the parties which usually means it is much less expensive than court actions. We go into some further detail on these savings below. Okay but how does it work in practice? If the parties opt for mediation, they must first agree on a mediator who is usually a lawyer or Medic experienced in this area. After hearing arguments from both sides, presented by their legal representatives, the mediator’s job is to assist the parties in coming to a settlement which often involves compromise. The outcome could be a final payment with or without an apology or another award reflecting the particular circumstances of the plaintiff. What are the chief benefits of mediation in such medical negligence cases? Privacy. Unlike hearings in open court, where reporters may be present, all mediation cases are held in private and any settlement agreed will be fully confidential between the parties. It is easy so to see why hospitals might prefer private mediation as opposed to a full hearing in court even where they might admit that a compensation payment is likely. Savings both on cost and time. In any medical negligence court case, there are numerous appearances before the court seeking adjournments, discovery, costs or other applications. In fact, it can take a full year to come to court after you apply for the case to be set down for hearing. Mediation takes place over a far shorter time period, thereby reducing costs but a similar outcome in compensation can be achieved. Informality and flexibility. There are no wigs and gowns in a mediation process. In addition, the parties could agree on special arrangements such as perhaps additional cost-free medical treatment for the plaintiff. What did that Mediation Act 2017 do? It brought the mediation process into the forefront of litigation by encouraging solicitors to use it as an alternative to court hearings so that the stress, time and costs involved could be reduced. The Act in fact compelled solicitors to inform their clients about the option to mediate and its benefit before they even start to issue court proceeding. The Act also underlines the confidentiality of mediation. Finally, the act confirms that any agreement reached is to be legally binding with consequences if one party breaches the terms of the settlement. Can mediation be a DIY process or do I still need a solicitor? You should always engage a solicitor. Mediation is less stressful than the adversarial setting of a court, but it needs careful preparation and informed decision-making during the process. Your solicitor will assist you in all the steps involved making sure that your rights are fully protected and that you conclude the mediation with the best possible settlement.

While the subject matter of the case involved a personal injury which the plaintiff incurred when being pushed from behind while descending a staircase in the defendant’s school, the application before the court was to dismiss the case on account of prolonged delay by the plaintiff in pursuing the case. Because of the delay, the defendant had previously sought to have the case dismissed. This case was Neiser v. Leinster Senior College, unreported, High Court, Phelan J., 29 June 2023. Mr Justice Phelan dismissed the motion to dismiss the case relying on the decision in Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 I.R. 459. He cited from that judgment which said in part: ‘I refuse to make an order dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay being satisfied that this delay has not so prejudiced the defendant as to tip the balance of justice against allowing the case to proceed.’ Phelan J expressly stated that there was an “imperative” for steps to be taken, without any further delay, to secure a hearing date for these proceedings. As of the date of the judgment, the only procedural step remaining to be completed in order to obtain a hearing date was to make an application to the judge in charge of the Personal Injuries List. Nothing else was outstanding. The pleadings were long since closed and the discovery process completed. However, the plaintiff’s side failed to apply for a date, despite numerous requests that they do so. The plaintiff’s solicitors filed to come off record, but this was not followed through and the plaintiff's solicitor admitted that there was delay by his firm in processing the case which was not the plaintiff’s fault. The solicitor acknowledged that the plaintiff had been given a “clear warning” by the court that there should be no further delay in obtaining a hearing date and that the plaintiff and her solicitors have not complied with that warning. The principles governing applications to dismiss proceedings on the grounds of delay have recently been restated by the Supreme Court in Kirwan v. Connors [2025] IESC 21. The following points are of especial relevance to the circumstances of the present proceedings. First, the law should recognise the fact that passage of time is important in and of itself, and can justify dismissal of a claim, without more justification. Second, there is no mutual obligation in litigation requiring defendants to take positive steps to advance a case brought against them. Defendant inactivity is not normally a bar to dismissal. Third, rules on dismissal of claims for want of prosecution are not themselves an impermissible interference with the right of access to courts to litigate claims and there is no presumption against dismissal. Fourth, if a court does not dismiss the claim, it would be entitled to make strict case management directions on the basis that non-compliance with such directions would itself justify dismissal. In the current application to dismiss the proceedings, Simons J observed that the judgment of Phelan J of 29 June 2023 was that the refusal of the application was contingent on steps being taken without any further delay to secure a hearing date for the proceedings. These steps had not been taken. In seeking to dismiss the motion to terminate the action because of inordinate delay, counsel for the plaintiff submitted nevertheless that there were exceptional circumstances which justified further indulgence. First, it was said that the plaintiff is unemployed and suffers financial hardship. Second, it was said that the plaintiff suffers from depression and ill-health caused by the alleged incident. This, it was said, has led to difficulties in obtaining instructions from the plaintiff. Simons J rejected all three grounds and said: ‘The plaintiff has failed to establish that there are any exceptional circumstances which might justify the delay from June 2023 in having a hearing date fixed. As explained in Kirwan v. Connors (per O’Donnell C.J.) a court, in deciding not to dismiss a claim, is entitled to make strict case management directions on the basis that non-compliance with such directions would itself justify dismissal. Here, the High Court, in its judgment of 29 June 2023, made it plain that steps were to be taken “without any further delay” to secure a hearing date for the proceedings. This imperative has not been complied with and there is no justification for this non-compliance. It follows, therefore, that the proceedings must be dismissed by reason of delay.’ The application to dismiss the personal injury proceedings because of delay was granted. Neiser v Leinster Senior College Ltd and Idemudia Akpekpe (third party) High Court (Simons J) [2026] IEHC 15