As we journey into 2026, it’s timely to reflect on some key developments and noteworthy cases that shaped Irish Employment law last year.
Minimum Wage
The start of 2025 saw an increase in minimum wage to €13.50 per hour. From 1st January 2026 it has increased further to €14.15 per hour.
Gender Pay Gap Reporting
2025 saw gender pay gap reporting requirements extended to employers with at least 50 employees.
Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025
This new legislation provides for a process whereby employees whose contract of employment specifies a retirement age below the state pension age (currently age 66) may notify their employer that they do not consent to retire at that age. There are certain notification requirements and on receipt of the notification, the employer must not enforce the contractual retirement age before providing the employee with a “reasoned written reply”. The new legislation was signed into law by the President just before Christmas 2025 however the provisions are not effective until such time as the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Employment makes the necessary commencement order.
Further details can be found in our Article, written on the first publication of the new Bill.
General Scheme of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024
The Bill proposes a number of noteworthy amendments to equality legislation.
Further details can be found in our Article. However, significant amendments to these proposals are expected.
WRC Looks Past the Corporate Veil
In Paul Lingard v Randridge International Ltd (In Examinership) (ADJ-00053934), the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) found that a contractor satisfied the test for an employee set out by the Supreme Court in Revenue Commissioners v Karshan Midlands (Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza) [2023] IESC 24. Although the contractual relationship was between two limited companies, the WRC looked behind this arrangement and found that there was a “contract of services”, i.e. an employment relationship.
Further details can be found in our Article.
Debenhams Case – High Court
The High Court reversed a decision of the Labour Court which found Debenhams Retail Ireland owed their former employee €1,140 for a breach of its obligations in relation to collective redundancies. The Labour Court found that the Respondent employer had failed to commence the consultation process in good time and that by delaying the consultation until after the liquidators had been appointed, they had limited the options available in terms of coming to an agreement. However, the High Court found there was no evidence put before the Court of any options being lost or unavailable as a result of the 8-day delay. The High Court also found that a consultation process can start in advance of the first consultation meeting and took into account the surrounding circumstances (Covid-19 restrictions, Easter Bank Holiday weekend).
Further details can be found in our Article.
Employer Found Not to be Data Controller of Non-Work Related Personal Data
The High Court upheld a decision of the Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) dismissing a complaint in relation to the HSE hack in 2021. The Applicant had discovered his personal email accounts had been compromised as well as his personal cryptocurrency account. The Applicant believed his work mobile phone was the source of the hack. The DPC decided that the HSE was not a “data controller”, within the meaning of that term in article 4.7 of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as the HSE did not authorise use of personal data on the work phone under their Acceptable Use Policy.
Further details can be found in our Article.
Significant Award for Breaches of Organisational of Working Time Act
The WRC made an award of €34,999.99 for multiple breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The Complainant gave credible evidence he was not afforded his daily and/or weekly rest periods and worked in excess of the maximum weekly working hours set out under the 1997 Act. This decision was noteworthy in circumstances where the Adjudicator found that the Complainant’s working hours were determined by the needs of the business (he was a Chef) notwithstanding that the Complainant was responsible for rostering his own hours.
Further details can be found in our Article.
Significant Decisions Upholding Mandatory Retirement Ages:
2025 saw some noteworthy decisions from the WRC and the Labour Court in which mandatory retirement provisions were upheld.
In August, 2025 the Labour Court overturned the WRC decision which found that Mr Tom Ronan was discriminated against on the grounds of age when he was forced to retire at 70. This case had an interesting background as Mr Ronan was successful in his High Court application for an interim injunction requiring the Garda Commissioner to immediately re-engage him as a civilian driver pending the outcome of his proceedings. However, his application for an interlocutory injunction (to continue the interim order) was refused by the High Court, who found the appropriate route to pursue his claim was the WRC and Labour Court and that it would not be appropriate for the High Court to “trespass” on this statutory mechanism (a link to our Article on this aspect of the matter is also found below). The Labour Court noted that it was bound by the Supreme Court decision in Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 20 in which Mr Justice Collins emphatically endorsed the State’s decision to apply a mandatory retirement age of 70 to the majority of public servants.
Further details can be found in our Article.
Further details on the High Court Application can be found in our Article.
In October, 2025, the WRC upheld the enforcement of a mandatory retirement age provision by Eircom Limited where it determined Eircom had acted reasonably in accordance with its Retirement Policy and the mandatory retirement age was objectively and reasonably justified by legitimate aims.
Further details can be found in our Article.
Supreme Court Recognised Claim for Damages for Emotional Stress as a Result of a Data Breach But Not as a “Personal Injury” Claim
The Supreme Court considered whether a claim for emotional distress as a result of a data breach falls within the statutory definition of “personal injury” and whether obtaining PIAB authorisation to initiate proceedings was required. It found that such a claim did not come within the definition of a “personal injury” claim. It was held the Plaintiff had a standalone claim for non-material damage pursuant to s117 of the Data Protection Acts. Mr. Justice Brian Murray also held that where a plaintiff’s claims are solely for mental distress, upset and anxiety that the plaintiff cannot expect anything other than very, very modest awards.
Further details can be found in our Article.
Pension Auto-Enrolment
The Government’s new statutory retirement savings system, MyFutureFund, went live from 1st January 2026. Employees are automatically enrolled if they are between 23 and 60 years of age, earn €20,000 or more per year and are not in “exempt employments”. Late in 2025 many employers were conscientiously preparing for this go-live date, especially upon the opening of the MyFutureFund Portal in December. New regulations were introduced relatively suddenly at the end of 2025 (and are already in effect since 1st January, 2026) setting out minimum standards that must be met in respect of contributions to occupational pension schemes and PRSAs in order for employments to be “exempt” from autoenrollment to MyFutureFund.
See more about pension auto-enrolment in our original Article and January update here.
A Quick Look at Noteworthy EU Developments…
In the case of G.L. v AB SpA (C-38/24) the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to employees who are caregivers of their child with a disability. This decision broadens the protections for caregivers and the concept of discrimination “by association”.
Further details can be found in our Article.
The full judgement dated 11 September 2025 can be found here.
On 11 November 2025 the CJEU annulled part of the Adequate Minimum Wages Directive while confirming the validity of the majority of the Directive. Article 5(2) and 5(3) of the Directive were found to constitute direct interference by EU law in the determination of pay and so were annulled. This judgement will likely require an update to the European Union (Adequate Minimum Wages) Regulations 2024 (S.I. No. 633 pf 2024). However, the judgement did not impact the promotion of collective bargaining, as required by the Directive. This is underway in Ireland with the publication of Ireland’s Action Plan to Promote Collective Bargaining 2026-2030 in early November 2025.
Further details can be found in our Article.
The full judgement can be found here.
Authors – Tara Kelly, Ethna Dillon and Laura Killelea
27th January 2026
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.