2025 has marked a step forward in Ireland’s legal landscape for collective actions and litigation funding. Following the implementation of the Representative Actions Act 2023 (The Act) which allows for representative actions to be brought by Qualified Entities (QEs), this year has seen the first class action lawsuit.
After growing push to reform Ireland’s near-total prohibition on third-party litigation funding under the torts of maintenance and champerty, 2025 saw two notable High Court judgments on the issue, hinting at growing judicial flexibility amid stalled reform. We also saw the EU publish its mapping study on litigation funding, which gives an indication that further change is coming down the line for all member states. Any reform that heightens claim risk is significant, as it amplifies exposure to a more complex and costly claims environment for insurers.
Representative actions – Key developments
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) initiated Ireland’s first representative action against Microsoft, alleging unlawful data processing. The case, admitted to the Commercial Court, seeks injunctive relief and is expected to be an important case for the handling of consumer collective actions in the courts.
In addition, Digital Rights Ireland became the third organisation approved as a QE, joining ICCL and NOYB. Despite this progress, funding challenges persist due to limits on third party litigation funding of collective actions. The Act states that third-party litigation funding is allowed only to the extent permitted by existing law. At present, third party litigation continues to be largely prohibited and the €25 cap on fees that QEs can charge consumers will mean that initiating class actions is unlikely to be financially viable except at a large scale.
Third party litigation funding – Key developments
The crowdfunding of litigation has long been considered impermissible because it would offend the doctrines of maintenance (which prevent an unconnected third party from funding litigation) and champerty (funding litigation in return for a share of the proceeds). However in Campbell v Irish Light[1], the High Court clarified that it can be lawful where donors are anonymous and receive no financial gain. The Court distinguished crowdfunding from champerty and accepted its charitable purpose, although other cases may still breach maintenance and champerty depending on the facts.
In Scully v Coucal[2], the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision not to enforce a Polish judgment on the basis that the claim had been assigned to an unconnected third party (which was permitted under Polish law). It was held that that while claim assignment is void under Irish law, the Courts must recognise judgments lawfully obtained in other EU states.
Reform at an EU level has too been slow. However in March 2025, the EU Commission published a mapping study in which various experts examined features of litigation funding across each of the European jurisdictions. Ireland was noted to be an outlier regarding its current prohibition on litigation funding. Professor David Capper considered the draft directive proposed by the European Parliament from an Irish perspective. He considered that most of the provisions of the draft directive are workable for Ireland but highlighted concerns over imposing fiduciary duties on funders and imposing a heavy-handed regulatory regime, which could deter UK-based funders.
Looking ahead
At the time of writing, we are expecting the Law Reform Commission to publish their recommendations following their public consultation on third party litigation funding. However, it is notable that in October 2025, the Minister for Justice indicated scepticism about enacting reform in this area. Therefore it is quite likely that Ireland may not implement any large-scale reforms before the directive (in its final form) is adopted on an EU-wide level.
For insurers, the advent of representative actions and judicial softening around litigation funding raises exposure to a more complex claims landscape. Representative actions increase the risk of large, aggregated consumer claims, while judicial flexibility on funding could accelerate litigation volumes – however this appears some way off at present.
For further advice on collective actions and litigation funding, get in touch with our experts who will be happy to help.
[1] [2025] IEHC 223
[2] [2025] IESC 20
