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 New legislation or precedent judgments can put AI tools out of date whereas your solicitor will be aware of any new changes of legislation or new case law where it affects your legal problem.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 If you follow AI legal advice and it all goes wrong for you, for example, say it gave you outdated law which you relied upon and lost, where do you stand on AI accountability?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.

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.

Commercial leases of shops or offices usually have a term of 10 to 20 years. The lease can be renewed on expiry of the term of 20 years; in fact, a short lease of five years usually confers this right to renewal. A ‘break’ clause is nearly always included in leases longer than 10 to 15 years. They allow the tenant or landlord to break the lease either on the third or fifth year of the tenancy and that will formally end the lease agreement between the parties. The tenant must have his rent and other payments up to date. He must also serve a formal notice on the landlord to indicate that he wants to break or sever the agreement. He must give plenty of notice to the landlord so the landlord will have time to relet the property. Rent reviews are always included in these leases and following a rent review exercise, the rent can remain the same or be revised upwards or downwards depending on the market rent for similar properties. An unfair condition that the new market rent can never be lower than the existing rent has been abolished now for several years. Typically a limited company will execute the lease but, if so, the landlord may well ask for a rent guarantee from the company directors are other parties. FRI leases means Full Repairing and Insuring obligations fall on the tenant. Stand-alone units, such as a factory, will usually see the tenant insuring the whole property to include its roof and structure. However, stores within shopping centres are a little more complex and here the tenant should insist on insuring only the internal part of his unit and not the external or structural part which will be far too expensive to repair. Rent is usually invoiced on a quarterly or monthly basis. Unfortunately, the tenant is also obliged to pay a service charge to cover security, public lighting, landscaping, maintenance, and management of the communal areas. In addition, of course there will also be rates and utility bills. landlords but their consent is needed and they will ask for any plans or drawings in this regard. Change of use may also be allowed but could require planning permission. Subletting or selling on the lease. Both require landlord’s consent, but this cannot be unreasonably withheld. Landlords will allow subletting if the proposed new occupant is a sound business person and undertakes to pay the rent direct to the landlord. In a similar fashion, a landlord will allow the lease to be sold on or assigned to a new person, but again his consent is required and he is entitled to see bank and trade references for the new occupant who will become, in effect, his new tenant.

On the death of a loved one, formalities take place to distribute the assets of the deceased, this is the administration of their estate. Where there is a Will, then it is comparatively straight forward. The Will sets out how the assets of the deceased are to be distributed but where the Will cannot be found, it creates issues. A person may intentionally destroy a Will with the intention of replacing it or it might genuinely be lost. It is advisable to store a Will in a place where others can easily find it. A court can also disregard a will if it is damaged beyond recognition. Whether lost or damaged beyond recognition, this can throw up serious legal implications. In these circumstances, contact your solicitor immediately. The general rule is that if the original Will of the deceased cannot be found, there is a presumption that the person who made the Will deliberately destroyed it with the intention to revoke it. It could be that this was to enable the person to write a new Will but evidence of that would need to be provided. Wills can be lost for a variety reasons, by the hand of its creator, genuinely lost, bad storage, damaged or lost by a third party or relative. In some cases where it can be established to the satisfaction of a judge, that the Will was destroyed or lost due to circumstances beyond the control of the testator, a court may permit a copy or even, in some cases, secondary evidence of its contents to be admitted into probate. How to Prove the Existence of a Lost or Destroyed Will Where a party is seeking to prove the existence of the original Will that was lost or destroyed, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking to establish its validity. The evidence must be clear, establishing that: The Will was executed correctly. The testator had not intended to revoke it. A true and accurate copy of the Will exists. Where there is no copy, the Will’s contents can be verified with evidence. In this instance the burden of proof is very high. Samples of Supporting Evidence A court must be satisfied that any evidence produced must show what the clear intention of the testator was. Samples are: A signed duplicate copy would be the best proof. An unsigned draft prepared by a solicitor. Witnesses who read or knew the contents of the Will, supporting evidence would most likely be required here. A court will be slow to grant probate unless the evidence is very clear and if the evidence does not meet the threshold of proof, the rules of intestacy will apply, that is, the distribution of the deceased's assets will be treated as if the testator died without making a Will. These situations can become quite complex, so consult your solicitor if there are any uncertainties concerning the Will of your loved one.

Early diagnosis is vital in treating any medical complaint. Regrettably, it can happen that a GP doctor does not see the early signs which can lead to a late diagnosis of the medical condition. A late diagnosis can create further medical issues for the patient because of the delay in identifying and treating the initial problem. In an ideal world this should not happen, but it does. The longer the medical condition is not identified the greater the risk to the patient, and this could, in some cases, be a matter of life or death. Where this occurs and the patient or next-of-kin sues the GP for medical negligence, in order to succeed, it must be proven that the GP was negligent in their treatment of the patient. If the GP did everything that would be expected of a reasonably competent doctor in treating the patient, then a negligence claim will fail. The question of delay will be examined to determine if the GP acted in accordance with the standard of care that any competent GP would give. If it shown that the GP fell below that standard of care, then negligence can be established. So was the delay in diagnosis: As a result of an act or omission of the GP or Was the act or omission caused by the hospital (¬t the GP) A court will look at the actions taken by the GP, what, if any, scans, and other procedures the patient was sent for and what interpretation was made from the results. Your solicitor will guide you through the process and determine who the correct defendant should be. Failure to Refer to a Specialist. Failure to refer in medical negligence occurs when a doctor breaches their duty of care by not referring a patient, in a timely manner, to a specialist or for necessary testing, causing injury or a worsened prognosis. The delay can add to the patient’s distress, suffering and possibly incur additional medical problems. Examples Where a GP fails to refer a patient to a consultant, hospital emergency department or fails to seek blood tests or other investigatory procedures. Time Limits In general, there is a two-year limit to start legal proceedings. There are some exceptions to this, and your solicitor will determine whether this applies to your case. Medical Negligence is a complex area so be sure to make early contact with your solicitor to assess the merits of your case.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is generally not legally binding. It is considered a formal agreement/informal? outlining the intent, roles, and objectives of parties involved in a collaboration, rather than a legally enforceable contract. It acts as a "gentlemen's agreement" or a step toward a future formal contract. It normally is followed by a formal written enforceable contract. What are MOUs Used for? After parties meet and discuss a future project or business venture, they may agree to put in writing their initial thoughts discussed in negotiations which the parties agree on. This can be useful where the proposed project or business is some time away from execution, so a MOU sets out the parties’ common agreement without creating any legal obligations. As the parties’ work on the project or business to be put into action, a long-form agreement follows and is advisable. Leaving it too long could create issues where one party is not performing so leaving the other party with no legal address to resolve the position. Progressing from a MOU to long-form contract is particularly important where intellectual property is concerned. For instance, in the film business, one party might bring a concept for a film to another party who expresses interest in developing the concept to film. Here the parties can sign an MOU with the common aim to make the film. But if the long-form contract is delayed and disagreement breaks out between the parties, the ownership of the IP in the original concept can become an issue of some importance. Contents for a Valid MOU It is best that a solicitor is engaged to ensure the MOU is well drafted and the common goals are met. A common MOU should ideally contain the following clauses: An Introduction: this sets out the purpose of the MOU and identifies the parties to it. Objectives and Goals: This gives more details of the project and the objectives to be achieved. Roles and Responsibilities: This should set out clearly the roles and responsibilities (if any) of the parties. Duration: It is not absolutely necessary to set a deadline for the duration of the MOU, but some projects would require it. Confidentiality: This is important, it would be in the interests of all the parties that their MOU should be confidential. Non-Disclosure: Parties would be wise to agree to this. Disclosure should only be allowed with the consent of the other parties to the MOU. While MOUs are not legally enforceable, a breach of the non-disclosure clause could give rise to a breach of confidence claim. Governing law: this should be included where parties reside in different countries. Signatures of the parties: each party should sign the MOU. Date: the MOU should be dated. Always take advice from your solicitor before signing any documents.

Dental negligence claims for treatment abroad, such as crowns, implants, or veneers, can be pursued, though they are complex. Claims in Ireland must generally be initiated within two years of the treatment or from when you became aware of the injury. Compensation can cover physical pain, corrective treatments, loss of earnings, and travel costs. Key Aspects of International Dental Negligence Claims: Time Limit (Statute of Limitations): You typically have 2 years from the date of the injury or the "date of knowledge" (when you realised the treatment was negligent) to bring a claim. Liability Complexity: If you were referred by an Irish agency, the claim may be pursued against them in Ireland. Otherwise, legal action may need to be taken in the country where the treatment occurred, for example, Turkey. Your solicitor will advise here as it might be necessary to sue both the Irish agency and the dental professional abroad together. Common Claims: Claims often involve nerve damage, infection, poorly fitted crowns/bridges, broken instruments left in canals, and improper implant placement. Damages: You can seek compensation for:  A) General Damages: Pain and suffering. B) Special Damages: Cost of corrective treatment, remedial work, and travel expenses. What to Do: Consult a Solicitor: Engage a solicitor experienced in medical negligence to determine whether you have a case and advise on the options. Seek Independent Dental Opinion: Consult a dentist in Ireland to provide an expert opinion on the damage. Gather Evidence: Collect records, X-rays, contracts, and any costs incurred by you from the trip abroad to get the dental treatment. If your trip abroad contained a part holiday you would need to distinguish the actual cost associated with the holiday from the expenses. the dental expenses Potential Complications: Jurisdiction Issues: Determining if the case can be heard in Irish courts. Aftercare Issues: Difficulty obtaining records from the foreign clinic. All records should be supplied but sometimes these can be delayed but your solicitor will endeavour to speed these up. Language Barriers: Understanding informed consent documentation. Consent should be clearly understood for the treatment to be received and any failure by the dental profession to obtain this irrespective of language barriers falls on the dental professional. The Package Holiday and Travel Trade Act, 1995 The Package Holidays and Travel Trade Act 1995 is the primary legislation in Ireland that protects consumers who book package holidays and this can include the protection of consumer rights for receiving dental services abroad. It transposed EU Directive 90/314/EEC into Irish law, ensuring that travel organisers are legally responsible for the proper performance of the services they sell. While the Act was brought in for consumer protection, there are a number of sections that apply in this Act for negligent dental service carried out abroad, namely: A)Section 11: Liability for defective brochures B)Section 12: Information to be provided before contract is made. C)Section 14: Essential terms of contract D)Section 19: Significance failure of performance Your solicitor will advise on whether a claim falls with the 1995 Act and if so, will include that in a claim. As stated at the outset, suing for services carried out abroad can be complex and time consuming so consult your solicitor early for advice on how to proceed.

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.