Put simply, a breach of contract happens when one party fails or refuses to perform what it is required to do under the contract. To establish a breach, it must be shown that there was an unambiguous obligation in the contract to perform. The language used in the contract will be scrutinised by a judge in determining what was actually agreed between the parties. Vague clauses will not assist. Binding Obligation To find a breach by a party, the contract must clearly state that one party is committed to performing a certain action. For instance, a clause might state that X was to pay Y a certain amount of money by a specified date. Failure to pay that by the specified date would constitute a breach. A party could seek more time, but that would need an amendment to the contract to cater for that change of terms. A contract may have several terms, some minor, some major. A minor breach mat not generally be sufficient to initiate successful legal proceedings for breach. Whereas a fundamental breach would. In the case of a fundamental breach, the innocent party, can accept the breach, treat the contract as terminated and claim damages for the breach. Alternatively, the innocent party could negotiate fresh terms by agreement but insist on delivery by the other party under the threat of legal proceedings. Defences to Breach of Contract Impossibility to Perform: This arises where something occurs which is outside the control of the party. An example could be where goods warehoused are destroyed in a fire. Force Majeure: This is a common clause in a contract where the party is relieved of their obligation due to extraordinary events like natural disasters or events like COVID. Other defences that could be cited are: Mistake – where a genuine misunderstanding occurred between the parties. Misrepresentation or Fraud – where the other party was less than honest or made dishonest statements in entering the contract. Duress – the contract was agreed under threats or undue pressure. Capacity - a party was a minor Statute of Limitations – the claim for the breach is outside the 6-year limit. To plead a breach in court there are three basic requirements: (a) a valid contract existed (b) there was a material breach and (c) damages are an appropriate remedy. Cases will depend on the complexity of the issues involved. Always consult your solicitor before (i) entering contracts (ii) discussing the merits of whether a breach has occurred and (iii) defending or suing for breach.

Unfortunately, fraud situations can arise in the administration of the Will. This normally arises when an individual, for personal gain or advantage, provides false information regarding money or assets of the deceased. Examples of fraud during the administration of a Will are: Hiding or not disclosing assets, like jewellery, bonds, or cash. Submitting a false Will, knowing that it was not the genuine Will of the deceased. Exercising undue influence or coercion on the testator concerning the contents of the Will. This could arise where the testator is an elderly person and vulnerable to the persuasion of someone whom they trust. An executor or administrator could commit fraud by transferring assets to himself/herself or intentionally distributing the money/assets contrary to the expressed wishes of the deceased. Falsely claiming that the deceased owed money to them. The executor must gather in all liabilities and assets of the deceased. Before any disbursement of the deceased assets can be made, the executor must discharge all debts, so if a person falsely claims they were owed money from the deceased and was duly paid, that action is fraud. What to do if Fraud is Suspected If concerned or surprised by the Will of a loved one, consider if the deceased had changed their Will shortly before their death. Was legal advice obtained? Was there a change of solicitor before the person died? A homemade Will would give rise to suspicion. Does the Will include beneficiaries that are unknown to the family? Have the witnesses to the Will changed from what was previously evident? Is the anything odd or out of character in the Will? If fraud is suspected, raise the concern with your solicitor. This will start a review of the process and examination of the documents. It could be resolved this way but as fraud is a crime, it may become necessary to report it to An Garda Siochana. The mere consideration of reporting it to the police could cause the culprit to come clean and result in a speedy remedy and not involve the police.

It can arise in companies that a minority shareholder can feel marginalised by the larger shareholders who may hold the majority of shares. In such cases, there is provision under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2014 to redress this issue. This section requires the aggrieved minority shareholder to apply to court which will determine whether there is what is described as oppression of the minority shareholder. As with any court application, it is highly advisable to seek the advice of your solicitor before going the court route. It might be that a letter from your solicitor to the other larger shareholder, could resolve the matter. On receipt of the letter, the other larger shareholder will know that the matter may end up in court unless it is resolved. However, they may be of the opinion that there is no oppression and allow it to proceed to court. What Can the Court Do? If the court finds there has been no breach of section 212 by the larger shareholder, the case will be dismissed, and more than likely, the costs order will be made against the party bringing the case. But if the court finds that there was a breach of the section, it has considerable powers to bring the offending conduct of the larger shareholder(s) to an end and grant such relief that the court considers appropriate. Remedies: The Act provides that the court can made orders for: The orders which a court may so make include an order— (a) directing or prohibiting any act or cancelling or varying any transaction; (b) for regulating the conduct of the company's affairs in future; (c) for the purchase of the shares of any members of the company by other members of the company or by the company and, in the case of a purchase by the company, for the reduction accordingly of the company's capital; and (d) for the payment of compensation to any aggrieved shareholder Taking the court route should be a last resort. Invariably such action will create bad feelings among shareholders. This is particularly the case if the shareholder taking the action is a member of management and so too the person(s) accused of oppression. This can lead to a distraction of the company business. Discuss the matter with your solicitor first and listen to the advice given. It is a big step seeking the assistance of the court to resolve an internal company matter and a costly one if the court declines your application.

As people get older, and their health declines, it can happen that their mental capability is not strong enough to make decisions regarding their treatment options. To plan ahead for these issues an Advance Healthcare Directive (AHD) can be considered. An Advance Healthcare Directive is a legally recognised document that sets out in advance the types of medical treatments you want to refuse, or accept, in case you lose the mental capacity to make or communicate decisions in the future. This provision is contained in the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. Powers under the AHD Medical Treatments: You can specify any particular medical treatments that you do not want. This can include life-sustaining treatment though within certain circumstances. State a Preference for particular Medical Treatments: This, while a preference, is more a guideline to your medical carers. A preference, though a statement of your wish, is not legally binding. Appointment of a Designated Healthcare Representative: This gives reassurances that your wishes will be carried out. Legal Restrictions There are legal limitations on what can be provided for, such as: Euthanasia in Ireland is unlawful. Basic care cannot be refused (e.g. shelter, food and fluid by mouth, pain relief). Treatment that is unlawful. How to Obtain an AHD Firstly, contact your solicitor, he/she will walk you through all the requirements. The following are essential requirements: Age: The minimum age is 18. Capacity: When creating the AHD document, you must fully understand what it is you are entering into, i.e. have the mental capacity. Written Document: The AHD must be in writing. AHD Must be Witnessed: At least two adult witnesses are required by law of which one must not be an immediate family member. Doctor: a medical practitioner should sign it and confirm the mental capacity of the person seeking it. Your solicitor will advise you on all details for an Advance Healthcare Directive .

Whether convening a public dance event for a one-off or multiple occasions, a public dance hall license is required. Applications are made to the local District Court for the area where the premises is situated. Applications can be for a year-long license (heard at the Annual Licensing District Court) or for a temporary license valid for up to one month. There is a process to be completed before appearing before the court and, to ensure the best chance of success, it is best that this is handled by your solicitor. It is possible that an objection to the license could arise in the court application. The Procedure Initially, applications are made to the local District Court office, here you need to supply proof that all necessary legal, safety and insurance evidence is supplied to satisfy the court that the venue is suitable for the dance, and all these matters are up to date and complied with. If notice is required to third parties, then proof must be produced that such parties have been notified of the application. When the court office is satisfied that all the papers are in order, it is put into the court list. Court Application The application to the court is made under the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935. The process can be straight forward, if the judge is satisfied that the law has been complied with and there are no objections to the dance being held. However, that is not always the case. A common objection would be noise created by the event. Your solicitor will be ready for this and will seek to appease the court that all precautions will be in place to ensure the minimum disturbances to the surrounding area. Present at the hearing can be members of the public, An Garda Síochána, and local fire officers who can object to the granting of the license (or renewal of a public dance license) in the District Court on fire safety grounds. Valid objections generally focus on the applicant's character, public nuisance, or the unsuitability of the premises. People residing around the dance venue can object. Examples of Valid Objections Public Nuisance & Disturbance : Excessive noise levels, public order issues, or severe disruption to residents. Suitability of the Premises : Lack of adequate fire safety compliance, insufficient security personnel, or poor facilities for parking and crowd control. Character of the Applicant : Evidence of the applicant's unfitness to operate the venue properly (e.g., previous misconduct or a poor track record with local authorities). Supervision: Whether the location makes it difficult for An Garda Síochána to supervise the venue and attendees effectively. Appeal if Initial Application is Declined Appeals can be made to the Circuit Court. In such cases, the appellant must notify the Garda Superintendent of the local area and the local fire authority. Your solicitor will take you through these steps.

When people have a legal problem, it can be tempting to try AI for advice. This step, while it can provide informative data on your problem, it could lead to further problems. AI can be very good at certain matters but in legal (and indeed medical) issues, it is safer to rely on professionals. Looking at AI is fine and it might mention matters which you can ask your solicitor about. Each legal problem or case (if it goes to court) has its own unique elements which humans are best to evaluate than AI. Matters to be aware of Not all information given in AI is 100% dependable. The problem for the user is what is reliable and what is fake? Some AI generated documents submitted to Irish courts have been thrown out as unreliable, untrue information amounting to misleading legal arguments and some have given fake citations of decisions. By inserting confidential or sensitive information into an AI tool can create breach of confidentiality and result in further legal issues. There is a danger that the use of such information could be picked up elsewhere. New legislation or precedent judgments can put AI tools out of date whereas your solicitor will be aware of any new changes of legislation or new case law where it affects your legal problem. For instance, if the Supreme Court decides today on a case which changes the law in some area, can you be sure that the AI tool you are using has been updated to include that? Accountability This is an important consideration. Solicitors and barristers when engaged by a client have professional indemnity insurance where they have acted below their accepted standard of service or negligently. If you follow AI legal advice and it all goes wrong for you, for example, say it gave you outdated law which you relied upon and lost, where do you stand on AI accountability? Out in the cold, no come-back, no professional indemnity, nothing. The best advice will be from a solicitor who can give you individual attention on your problem.

In common with any other form of litigation, actions taken over probate must comply with the Statute of Limitation, 1957. Probate claims must be taken within 12 years to recover land or personal estate, from the date of death of the deceased. For claims against a deceased personal estate, claims must be taken within six years. For children (under section 117), claims must be taken with six months of the grant of probate. A recent case came before the High Court to determine a preliminary issue on whether the plaintiff’s claim was statute-barred by reason of s. 45 of the Statute of Limitations, 1957. The deceased, Bridget Doyle, died on 19 August 2016, aged 83. She was survived by one son (the plaintiff) and six daughters, two of which were her personal representatives and the defendants. The Grant of Probate in the estate was issued on 8 October 2019 and the plaintiff issued proceedings on 1 February 2025. The plaintiff in his action sought to compel the defendants to distribute the estate in accordance with what the plaintiff claimed is the true interpretation of the deceased’s Will. But in this case, the court confined itself to a preliminary point on whether the plaintiff was within the Statute of Limitation in issuing proceedings. The defendants contended that the six-year was breached as the period runs from the date of death of the deceased and that proceedings should be dismissed. The court first considered the Relevant Limitation Period. Section 45 of the Statute of Limitations, 1957, as inserted by s. 126 of the Succession Act, 1965, provides: “(1) Subject to section 71, no action in respect of any claim to the estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in such estate, whether under a will, on intestacy or under section 111 or section 111A of the Succession Act, 1965, shall be brought after the expiration of six years from the date when the right to receive the share or interest accrued.” The effect of the changes brought about by the Succession Act, 1965, in applying a limitation period to claims by beneficiaries against personal representatives, even though they are trustees of the estate for those entitled, is tempered by s. 71 of the Statute, which provides for an extension of the limitation period in s. 45 in certain circumstances. Section 71 of the Statute, which provides: “(1) Where, in the case of an action for which a period of limitation is fixed by this Act, either— (a) the action is based on the fraud of the defendant or his agent or of any person through whom he claims or his agent, or (b) the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall enable an action to be brought to recover, or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that any fraud had been committed.” The judge pointed out that section 71 does not operate, in this case, to prevent the plaintiff’s claim becoming statute barred. In this particular case, the judge observed that the Will was ambiguous and that it was clear from the correspondence that the plaintiff had a copy of the Will and was asserting his interpretation of it by early 2018, which is approximately seven years before the institution of the within proceedings. Also, the defendants were asserting a contrary interpretation and did not intend to bring a construction summons. Consequently, the court noted that even if it could be said that the limitation period may have been extended by s. 71 for a time, that is, until the personal representatives furnished the plaintiff with a copy of the Will, the time had obviously begun to run by early 2018. As that was more than six years before proceedings were instituted, s. 71 cannot avail the plaintiff in this case. The defendants asserted that the time ran from the date the deceased died. The judge consulted caselaw on the issue of the limitation period. The next point the judge considered was when did the right to receive the bequest accrue? The judge pointed out that Section 45 (1) provides that the six-year limitation period commences on “the date when the right to receive the share or interest accrued” and, therefore, the outcome of this preliminary issue depends on the correct interpretation of that phrase. The judge reviewed case law on this point but found no judicial consideration of when the “right to receive” a bequest of real property under a Will accrues. To assist the judge looked at some UK caselaw and while no binding here, they can be influential in the absence of Irish case law. Thus in considering the caselaw the judge said ‘The answer to the question must be that the real property in question vests in the executors named in the Will and they hold it “as trustees” in the sense that they must duly administer the estate in accordance with law and, once they are satisfied that the property in question is not required to discharge any costs, expenses, liabilities or claims, they are then obliged to transfer it to the person entitled thereto under the Will’. The judge said there must be time allowed for due administration, so it cannot be said that the ‘right to receive the bequest’ cannot follow immediately on death of the deceased. The judge next considered ‘Time allowed for due administration of an estate.’ In general, a year is allowed for an executor to identify, assemble the assets and liabilities of an estate. There will be exceptions to this in complex Wills but in straight-forward Wills a year should be sufficient. The judge consulted case law on this. The judge found that there was nothing to suggest in this case to fall outside the one-year period. In summing up this case the key issue in determining the net point on the Statute of Limitations centred around the ‘right to receive.’ The judge said: I find it difficult to see how there can be a “right to receive” when there remains the possibility of a claim which might require the personal representatives to refrain from distribution so as to meet that claim. On the facts of this case, that time seems not to have expired until six months after the grant issued. The plaintiff sued less than six years from the expiry of that six-month period (and indeed less than six years after the issue of the Grant), and therefore, it cannot be said that he is statute-barred by reason of section 45. Consequently, the plaintiff was not statute barred from taking his case. Frank Doyle v Anne Doyle and Bridget Goodwin Doyle High Court (Ms Justice Stack) 29 April 2026 [2026] IEHC 285.

(This article will consider the situation on lettings made after the 1st of March 2026 as the regulations changed after that date) General points to watch : Use a platform like Daft.ie to find current properties available. Have a file ready to include employer references, previous landlord reference, and evidence of ability to pay the rent such as bank statements or letter from bank. First month’s rent and security deposit need to be paid on signing of the lease. Confirm if any parking space is available with the apartment. Lettings usually include lots of furniture and kitchen items. Ask for these to be listed as an inventory and ideally attached to the lease. Disputes can arise over missing or smaller items that have not been included in the inventory. Under the new rules, rent increases are capped at 2% or the cost-of-living index, whichever is the lower. Any evictions only apply where a tenant breaches his obligations to pay rent, or similar, or the landlord himself or his family wish to move in. The most important change is a Tenancy of Minimum Duration (TMD) for a period of six years applies as soon as a tenant has been in occupation for six months. In other words, as a general rule, a tenant can stay on in the premises for a minimum of six years and indeed, if they wish, a further period of six years, unless the landlord has given adequate notice that he or his family wish to move in and occupy the property themselves. The six-year rule applies even if the parties actually signed only a one-year agreement provided it is signed after the 1st of March 2026. Tenants should note the six-year rule does not apply to them if they wish to vacate. They can do this at any time, even during the six-year term, on merely giving the landlord a notice of termination and the required notice. 9. What are the Tenant’s obligations?  To pay rent and any electric/gas/refuse charges. To maintain the property in a reasonable condition but fair wear and tear excepted. Also to allow the landlord to access the property provided he has given sufficient notice to the tenant. The landlord might have to check a leak or show off the apartment if it has been sold. 10. What about the landlord’s obligations? To allow you peaceful enjoyment of the property and to pay any service charge which includes fire insurance on the building and Management Company fees. Also, the landlord is responsible for any local property tax, but it is advisable that the tenant pays himself for insurance on the contents of the apartment for example, furniture, bedding, TV, computer equipment, jewellery etc.

A family day out could turn out to be a disaster where an accident occurs causing injury and possibly a hospital stay. Councils around the country provide playgrounds and while every foreseeable precaution is made to avoid accidents, they still occur. Though, not every accident is necessarily the fault of the council. As in all personal injury cases, negligence must be proved. Councils are also responsible for uneven concrete footpaths. These can be particularly dangerous for running children or those with impaired eyesight or elderly. But again, the mere fact of an accident is not evidence of fault. The injured party must prove that the council were negligent in the repair or condition of the footpath which caused the accident. A common defence by a council is that the injured party contributed to the accident. Take for instance, a person texting on their mobile phone, not noticing an uneven slab of concrete, and tripping over causing them injury. While the council might be responsible for the poor maintenance or repair of the footpath, it would be reasonable for the council to state that the individual was not looking where they were walking and thus contributed to the fall. Common Kinds of Public Area Accidents Falls from Heights. Equipment Malfunction Slip and Trip Incidents. Collisions. Entanglement Environmental Hazards Animal Attacks. Amusement Parks (Non-Public Owned) Accidents that occur here are known as Public Liability Accidents and the owners of the park would have public liability accident insurance to cover these events. The owners of the amusement park have a legal responsibility to provide a duty of care to everybody using their facilities. The Law The Occupier’s Liability Act, 1995 is the governing law and under EU law the European Communities (Machinery) Regulations 2008 . Duty of Care The duty of care applies not just to paying customers but also those who work there. The additional range of regulations include: Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 The Health and Safety at Work Act 2005 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2016 Health and Safety Regulations 1996 Work at Height Regulations 2005 A duty of care can be defined as a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to others. So, what amounts to reasonably foreseeable? If the accident could have been foreseen then it falls within this definition but if the accident’s foreseeability was remote, it does not. Your solicitor will advise you on the merits of your case but do not delay in taking action as there is a time limit of two years within which to commence proceedings.