This Practice Note discusses the role and importance of the boilerplate clauses in an agreement. It identifies the boilerplate clauses that most commonly appear in agreements relating to transactions and examines the approach that should be taken when reviewing or drafting an agreement containing boilerplate clauses. Lawyers work on a huge variety of transactions, but all of them will in some way involve written agreements. All of those agreements should contain some boilerplate clauses. What is boilerplate? There is no standard definition of what a ‘boilerplate’ clause is. Boilerplate clauses are often thought of as standard, miscellaneous provisions. They are commonly agreed with little or no consideration or negotiation, but this is a dangerous approach to adopt. It is more accurate to understand ‘boilerplate’ as a term used to describe the clauses that are included in an agreement to deal with the mechanics of how it works and those legal points that are relevant to most transactions. They are generally found at the beginning and the end of an agreement. As a boilerplate clause will

This Practice Note discusses the common law doctrine of privity of contract, the exceptions to it, how the doctrine affects enforcing a contract against a third party and what happens when, notwithstanding the lack of privity, a contract has an indirect effect on a third party. For guidance on contracts and third parties more generally, see Practice Note: Ireland—Contracts and third-party rights. What does privity of contract mean? ‘Privity of contract’ is a common law doctrine, which provides that you cannot: • enforce the benefit of, or • be liable for any obligation under a contract to which you are not a party. Therefore, if your client is not a party to a contract (ie they are a third party) then they cannot sue or be sued under that contract. Example: • A promises to B that they will pay a sum of money to C—C cannot sue A for that sum if A fails to pay Murphy v Bower (1866) IR 2 CL 506 (not

This Practice Note considers the law on maintenance and champerty and how it affects third party litigation funding in Ireland. It examines the position of the Irish courts, the exceptions to the rule and recent developments in the area of third-party litigation funding. For guidance on litigation costs generally, see Practice Note: Ireland—Legal costs in civil proceedings. The rules against maintenance and champerty Third party litigation funding is where a third-party (with no prior connection to the litigation) agrees to finance or fund all or some of the legal costs of the litigation in return for a portion of the award or settlement the funded party recovers in the litigation. Third party litigation funding has long been prohibited in Ireland, since the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1634, which was retained in Ireland by Statute Law Revision Act 2007 (Ireland), which forbids maintenance and champerty and still remains in place today. Maintenance is the funding of litigation by unconnected third parties who have no legitimate interest. Champerty is the funding

This Checklist outlines the key timeliness for practitioners to be aware of in respect of presenting claims to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). For detailed guidance on making a claim in the WRC, see Practice Note: Ireland—Making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). Employment related claims The following complaints arising under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 (Ireland) (EEA 1998 (IRL)) or Pensions Acts 1990–2015 (Ireland) (PA 1990 (IRL)) must be submitted by completing the online complaints form available on the WRC website. See the WRC website for further information on employment related claims. Type of claim Time limit Employment related claims Six months from date of alleged discrimination or if there is more than one alleged incident of discrimination, the relevant date is that of the latest incident.Requests for extension to 12 months for

Law 360: The European Court of Justice rejected an appeal from Google on Tuesday challenging a €2.4bn fine for steering users toward its own comparison shopping service, as the tech giant faces mounting pressure from antitrust enforcers at home and abroad.

This tracker identifies key guidance, consultations and reports on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that will be of interest to dispute resolution lawyers within the context of civil court proceedings in Ireland. It also considers reported judicial decisions on the use of AI by lawyers, litigants and judges. This tracker also collates wider judicial commentary, press releases and legal analysis concerning the developing role of AI in dispute resolution. Judicial and professional body guidance on AI The following has been produced by way of judicial and professional body guidance: Guidance Key dates Details High Court—Practice Direction HC142 Practice Direction on the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court documents 29 July 2026—issued1 September 2026—commencement The President of the High Court issued Practice Direction HC142 Practice Direction on the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court documents. The Practice Direction governs the use of generative AI (GenAI) in court documents in High Court civil proceedings. It requires material generated wholly or partly with the assistance of GenAI to be appropriately and

MLex: Ryanair has breached the EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) by forcing customers to verify themselves using facial scans, a trade body has alleged. EU Travel Tech, which represents online travel agents like Airbnb and Booking, has filed complaints with the French and Belgian data protection authorities regarding the airline’s practices, it said 21 May 2024. The group, alongside two others, also wrote to the European Commission urging it to ensure the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) enforces the EU GDPR against Ryanair.

Introduction The purpose of injunctions is to either compel a party to do something or to have them refrain from carrying out specific acts. Therefore, injunctions can be an effective legal tool to protect registered trade marks where infringement has occurred or continues to occur. This is particularly so, in instances where: • there is dilution of a proprietor’s trade mark—ie where a competing product enters the market under a confusingly similar mark, which may result in the trade mark owner becoming less able to distinguish its goods and/or services in the market, and thus reducing the mark’s value • there is unfair advantage taken of a proprietor’s trade mark—ie a competitor tries to associate itself with the proprietor’s mark and does so during the launch period of its good / service in order to establish itself in the market • the proprietor’s reputation is tarnished—ie where a party’s new product uses a similar mark to the proprietor’s, which raises confusion amongst consumers,

This Practice Note sets out the protection available for trade secrets and confidential information in a commercial and employment context in Ireland. It outlines the common law and the law under SI No 188/2018 European Union (Protection of Trade Secrets) Regulations 2018 (Ireland) (SI 188/2018 (IRL)) or the Trade Secrets Regulations (IRL)). Topics to be covered in this Practice Note include: • defining ‘trade secrets’ and ‘confidential information’ • protecting trade secrets and confidential information in the commercial and employment context • the concepts of fidelity and confidentiality • distinguishing between general knowledge and trade secrets • secondary liability • injunctions • other relief: damages, account of profits • European influence: Directive (EU) 2016/943 and SI 188/2018 (IRL) (the Trade Secrets Regulations (IRL)) Introduction to the laws protecting confidential information and trade secrets in Ireland Historically, Ireland had no statutory regime to address the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information. Their protection derived solely from equitable common law

The Companies Act 2014 (Ireland) (CA 2014 (IRL)) requires Irish companies to make certain trading disclosures, including in relation to the company’s name, share capital, directors and registered office. This Practice Note will focus on the requirements of a private company limited by shares (LTD). Display of registered name Location Every company is required to display its name on the outside of: • its registered office, and • any other location at which it carries on business Manner of display The name must be displayed in a conspicuous position, in letters which are easy to read. The use of the abbreviation ‘ltd’ instead of ‘limited’ or ‘teo’ instead of ‘teoranta’ is permissible. Disclosure of registered name in communications A company must have its name mentioned in legible characters in each of the following: • all notices and other official publications of the company • all bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements, cheques and orders for money or goods purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the company • all

Governing legislation The transfer of undertakings as a process is governed by SI No 131/2003 European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (Ireland) (SI No 131/2003 (IRL)) (TUPE Regulations 2003 (IRL)). The TUPE Regulations 2003 (IRL) replaced SI No 306/1980 European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees’ Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 1980 (Ireland) as amended by SI No 487/2000 European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees’ Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (Ireland). The original regulations implemented the EU Acquired Rights Directive 77/187/EEC. Relevant transfers There has been a considerable number of decisions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) defining what properly constitutes a transfer for the purposes of Directive 77/187/EEC and, as a result, the TUPE Regulations 2003 (IRL). A thorough examination of this caselaw is beyond the scope of this Practice Note. A transfer will be deemed to occur where the business retains its identity following the transfer, ie where the business was disposed of as a going concern as would be

General overview Under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (Ireland) (PDA 2014 (IRL)), a protected disclosure is defined as the disclosure of ‘relevant information’ by a worker which, in the worker’s reasonable belief, tends to show wrongdoing, and which came to the worker’s attention in a work-related context. Outside the protected disclosures space, but nonetheless in the area of whistleblowing, there is a separate claim under the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (Ireland) (SHWWA 2005 (IRL)) which whistleblowers may also take (detailed in brief and in full in the sections below). Importantly, a worker is presumed to have made a protected disclosure until the contrary is proven, so the onus is on the employer to show that a disclosure was not made where that fact is disputed. The information must reveal or ‘make known’ one or more relevant wrongdoings—examples include criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations (excluding personal employment contracts), miscarriages of justice, dangers to health or safety, damage to the environment, misuse