FLAC notes proposed changes to forthcoming judicial review Bill; however significant concerns remain

5 May 2026

FLAC had raised concerns that the proposals in the General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill constitute a radical curtailment of access to judicial review, and are likely to have a disproportionately negative impact on ordinary people that FLAC represent trying to establish and vindicate their legal, constitutional or fundamental rights in relation to very basic public services like social housing, emergency accommodation, additional educational supports, and access to basic social welfare payments.
On foot of a meeting requested by FLAC, Department of Justice officials have provided FLAC with details of a number of clarifications and proposed changes to the Civil Reform Bill which, if implemented, could address some of the issues with the Bill. The changes are, however, still ‘subject to drafting and Government approval’.
FLAC still has very significant concerns about the Bill and how it may block cases taken on behalf of disadvantaged groups. It has called for further consultation before it is advanced further.

The Department have informed FLAC that it is their intention to set the standard for getting permission to take a judicial review cases at an ‘arguable grounds’ threshold and that they are reviewing the inclusion of language in the Bill which would require cases to have a ‘reasonable prospect of success’. FLAC has raised concerns that requiring people to show that their case has a ‘reasonable prospect of success’ would effectively block public interest cases which raise complex or new legal issues which have not been considered before by the courts (such as the recent O’Meara judicial review case concerning cohabitants’ access to the Widower’s Pension).

The Department has also stated that it is intended to include language in the Bill which would address concerns about its provisions blocking people from taking constitutional cases as ‘plenary actions’.

The Department intends to amend the language used in the proposed legislation about ‘alternate remedies’ - to ensure that people without an effective and meaningful alternate remedy are not blocked from taking a case.

The new ‘discovery’ regime introduced in the Bill will only require the production of documents after a defence has been delivered in a case (rather than at the very outset as had been proposed in the General Scheme and which would have created a major practical barrier).

They also intend to make changes to ensure that additional environmental matters are dealt with by the new Planning and Environmental Court (rather than the standard judicial review court).

The Department expects to publish the Civil Reform Bill in the third quarter of 2026, and it intends to hold a ‘symposium’ about the legislation ‘before the summer’.

FLAC Chief Executive, Eilis Barry, commented:

“As presently drafted, the General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill would have a disproportionately negative impact on ordinary people that FLAC represents who are trying to establish and vindicate their rights in relation to very basic public services like social housing, emergency accommodation, additional educational supports, and basic social welfare payments.

FLAC has been seeking consultation and engagement about potential changes to judicial review since 2019 - so we welcome the Department’s engagement with us, and the updates they have provided may address some of the issues with the Bill. However, we still have very serious concerns about the Bill. For example, we do not see any justification for its proposed reduction of the already very restrictive 12-week time limit for taking a case to eight weeks. If implemented, this restrictive time limit will put access to judicial review out of reach for people who don’t have the resources to pay for and access immediate legal assistance.

Our concerns also remain about proposals to limit the court’s discretion to grant judicial review, to limit the availability of appeals in judicial review cases, or to restrict when even successful applicants may be awarded their costs. It is incumbent on the Department to provide the evidential basis, policy basis and the rationales for each of the changes it is proposing before they proceed any further.

Full consultation on this proposed legislation is still necessary and we welcome the Department’s commitment to a ‘symposium’ about it - which should hear from people most likely to be affected negatively by these changes.

We look forward to further engagement with the Department about this legislation and will continue to campaign against any changes which limit access to the courts and which would interfere with people’s right of access to justice.”

ENDS.

FLAC’s previous statement, submission and opening remarks to the Oireachtas Justice Committee regarding the General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 can be found here.
The Oireachtas Justice Committee has considered the legislation and is in the process of preparing a Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Report in relation to it

Notes:

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill was published in January this year. It proposes major changes concerning judicial review cases. FLAC set our grave concerns in relation to the General Scheme in a submission to the Oireachtas Justice Committee. We also outlined those concerns in a letter to the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration dated 19 March 2026. As it was published, the General Scheme proposed to:

Further reduce the time limit for taking a judicial review case to eight-weeks (from three months) in most instances. It would also limit the courts discretion to extend the time limit.
Introduce strict new rules about who can take a case - requiring the person taking the case to be “directly affected by the act which is the subject of the application [for judicial review].” This would make some decisions taken by the State effectively immune from challenge.
Introduce several strict new conditions which must be satisfied before someone can get permission to take a case. This includes a requirement to show that the case “has a reasonable prospect of success” just to get permission for the case to be heard. This would make it almost impossible to take public interest cases like O’Meara where legal issues which have not been considered before by the courts are being raised. At present the applicant needs to show they have an ‘arguable case.’
Block most people from appealing a negative decision in a judicial review case.
Limit the circumstances in which the State must the pay the legal costs of people who have taken a successful judicial review case. This would hugely raise the financial risks associated with taking a case, even for people who have proven the State acted unlawfully.
Move some judicial review cases to the Circuit Court where constitutional issues cannot be argued. At present, all judicial review cases begin in the High Court. However, at the meeting of the Oireachtas Justice Committee on 24 March 2026, Department of Justice officials confirmed that “the Minister has directed that the proposals to expand the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court are to be removed from the Bill.”
Create massive confusion about how and when people can take a constitutional challenge against the State and potentially block such challenges.
Perpetuate a tiered system of justice where it is harder to take a judicial review case if it involves a particular area of law such as immigration or international protection.

These changes would make it very likely that it will become extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the average person to challenge unlawful actions in any case that is complex or is without precedent – in that it involves a new point of law or public interest -such as O’Meara. It would also have a very negative impact on people that FLAC and other Independent Law Centres represents who are trying to establish and vindicate their legal and constitutional rights in relation to very basic public services like social housing, emergency accommodation, additional educational supports, and basic social welfare payments.

FLAC’s Outstanding Concerns about the Civil Reform Bill

We believe that the proposed eight-week time limit for seeking the permission of the court to take a judicial review case should be dropped in favour of the existing or more generous time limits. The proposed new time limits would heighten the significant practical barriers which FLAC’s clients already face under the current very tight three-month time limit. If implemented, the restrictive time limit will put access to judicial review out of reach for people who do not have the resources to pay for and access immediate legal assistance.
Similarly, we believe that the court’s discretion to grant judicial review should be retained, rather than limiting as is proposed under Head 8 (5). This could be achieved by amending the language in the legislation to state that the court “shall consider” the factors listed in Head 8(5) in exercising its discretion (rather than the current position which provides that the court cannot exercise its discretion to grant JR unless each of those factors are met).
We do not agree with the provision under Head 8(7) which would limit the circumstances when even successful applicants may be awarded their costs. As a result of this change, certain applicants who have successfully shown that a public body acted unlawfully through a judicial review case would have to pay their own costs for taking that case. This would reduce accessibility of judicial review and its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism.
We also have outstanding concerns in relation to the restrictions on appealing decisions in judicial review case contain in Head 12 of the General Scheme. Again, we do not see a rationale for these changes and the proposed thresholds for getting permission to appeal (‘exceptional public importance’ and ‘public interest desirability’) are extremely high. There are no similar limitations on appealing High Court decisions arising from statutory appeals or judgments or from plenary actions.

About FLAC:

FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres) is an independent legal, human rights and equality organisation, which works in a number of different ways to promote equal access to justice:

In 2024, our Telephone Information and Referral Line responded to 11,435 queries. FLAC also provides Phone Legal Advice Clinics.
Our independent law centre provides targeted legal services for the Traveller and Roma communities and also undertakes public interest litigation (i.e. cases which may have an impact beyond the individual).
FLAC also operates PILA which facilitates NGOs to obtain legal assistance from private lawyers via its pro bono referral scheme.
FLAC makes policy recommendations in relation to areas of law that most impact on people living in poverty and disadvantage, including equality and anti-discrimination law, social welfare law, housing law, human rights law, and access to justice.