Automatic enrolment
Introduction of Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Regulations 2025
On 1 January 2026, Ireland’s new Automatic Enrolment (“AE”) retirement savings system, known as MyFutureFund, went live. The system is to be administered by the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority (“NAERSA”). AE operates alongside existing occupational pension schemes and does not replace them. Whether an employee must be enrolled depends on whether their employment qualifies as “exempt employment.”
The Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System Regulations 2025 (the “AE Regulations”) were signed by the Minister for Social Protection in December 2025 and took effect on 1 January 2026. Under the AE Regulations, for an employee to be in “exempt employment”, their occupational pension arrangement must meet new minimum standards. For defined contribution arrangements, the employer must contribute at least 1.5% of gross pay (subject to an annual cap of €1,200); and total employer and employee contributions must amount to at least 3.5% of gross pay (subject to an annual cap of €2,800). For defined benefit schemes, continued service in employment must entitle the employee to accrue a “long service benefit” under the scheme. Where a defined benefit scheme has been closed to future accrual, or where an employee has opted out of future service accrual (e.g. as they have exceeded the Standard Fund Threshold), a query usually arises as to whether the test is satisfied.
Where employment does not meet the exemption criteria, then following a review process, NAERSA will issue an Automatic Enrolment Participation Notice (AEPN) via payroll, requiring deductions to be made for MyFutureFund. If this occurs while the employee remains an active member of an occupational scheme, there is a risk of overlapping or “double” contributions until scheme contribution structures or membership statuses are adjusted.
Legislative updates
Occupational Pension Schemes (Revaluation) Regulations 2026
The Minister for Social Protection has signed the Revaluation Regulations in respect of the Revaluation Year 2025 and has prescribed an increase of 2.2% in the number of preserved benefits. Administrators will need to update the records of deferred members with entitlements to preserved benefits to take the revaluation into account.
European Union (European Single Access Point) Regulations 2026
The European Single Access Point (“ESAP”) is intended to be a ‘single point of access’ platform for public financial, non-financial and sustainability-related information about EU companies and financial products, including pension schemes. The European Securities and Markets Authority is due to begin operating ESAP by mid-2027.
On 10 February 2026, the Minister for Finance made three statutory instruments (the “ESAP Regulations”) to give effect to the ESAP in Ireland. The ESAP Regulations introduce new sections 59I and 59J of the Pensions Act 1990. Section 59I requires trustees to pass on SFDR disclosures to the Pensions Authority for the purpose of making the information accessible on ESAP. Section 59J requires trustees to submit annual reports, audited accounts and actuarial valuations, remuneration policies and statements of investment policy principles to the Pensions Authority for the same purpose. Section 59I takes effect from 10 January 2028 and section 59J takes effect from 1 January 2030.
IORP II
Expiry of derogation for One Member Arrangements (“OMAs”)
Under the transitional arrangements for the introduction of IORP II in 2021, OMAs which were established prior to 22 April 2021 were granted a five-year derogation from the requirement to comply with the provisions of IORP II and the Code of Practice. This derogation will expire on 21 April 2026 and employers who sponsor OMAs in respect of their employees should now be liaising with OMA providers and beneficiaries, if they have not already done so, to discuss future options in respect of their OMAs. These options are likely to include wind-up of the OMA and transferring its assets to a master trust, personal retirement savings account (“PRSA”) or personal retirement bond.
Pensions Authority updates
Pensions Authority outlines priorities for 2026
On 28 January 2026, in a presentation to the National Pensions Summit, the Pensions Regulator gave an overview of the present pensions landscape in Ireland, provided an outlook of what lies ahead for pensions in Ireland, and set out the priorities and plans of the Pensions Authority (the “Authority”) for the year ahead.
The Regulator noted that there has been significant consolidation in the Irish pensions market, with a substantial transition of defined contribution provision into master trust schemes in Ireland. The Regulator also noted that there has been a considerable growth in PRSAs over recent years. At the end of October 2025, assets totalling €21.5 billion were held in PRSAs in Ireland. In response, the Authority is increasing its oversight of PRSAs.
The Authority conducted several in-depth supervisory reviews during 2025, primarily focused on master trusts, and the Pensions Regulator highlighted a number of findings from those reviews. In particular, the Pensions Regulator highlighted a lack of awareness of conflicts of interest in certain instances; trustees failing to consider operational resilience; and trustees failing to recognise the importance of the Own-Risk Assessment as issues of concern.
Looking ahead, the Pensions Regulator welcomed the legislation to introduce a pension scheme authorisation regime that has been promised by the Minister for Social Protection. The Pensions Regulator stated that the Authority’s approach to forward-looking risk-based supervision of pension schemes continues to develop and be refined. The Authority will also be introducing a new IT system in mid-2026.
The Regulator stated that the Authority’s priorities for 2026 are: the ongoing supervision of continuing schemes and raising trustee standards where necessary; completing the transition of other schemes to master trusts or PRSAs as soon as possible; increased gathering and use of data to support the Authority’s supervision activities; implementing the new pension scheme authorisation regime as soon as possible once enacted; and staying ahead of national and European developments in pensions regulation.
Revenue updates
Updates to Chapter 13 of the Revenue Pensions Manual
On 19 December 2025, the Revenue issued revisions to Chapter 13 of the Revenue Pensions Manual, which deals with the transfer of pension benefits. These revisions were on foot of previous amendments to Chapter 13 in August 2025.
The updated Chapter 13 states that the benefits of a member of an exempt approved scheme may be transferred to a Personal Retirement Savings Account (PRSA) to which the member is a contributor where “the scheme member is changing employment or the scheme is being wound up…so long as benefits have not become payable to the member under the scheme.”
Chapter 13 further states that “The rules of the specific scheme will determine when pension benefits become payable. In most cases, benefits become payable at Normal Retirement Age (NRA). This means that a transfer of benefits to a PRSA is not permitted after the scheme member’s NRA.”
In addition, the Manual addresses the transfer of preserved benefits from one exempt approved scheme to another or to an approved buy-out bond (BOB) in the circumstances outlined in Section 34 of the Pensions Act. In this regard specific reference is made to Section 34(7) of the Pensions Act which provides that a member is not entitled to a transfer payment in respect of preserved benefits where “payment of his preserved benefit has commenced”.
European updates
Commission announces package of measures to increase supplementary pension provision
On 20 November 2025, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published a package of proposals designed to boost supplementary pension provision (i.e. pensions provided through occupational pension schemes) within the EU. The Commission stated that the intention behind its proposals is to help citizens secure adequate income in retirement by improving access to better and more effective supplementary pensions.
The Commission recommends that Member States implement pensions auto-enrolment if they have not already done so; develop comprehensive pension tracking systems to provide citizens with a clear overview of their pension rights and projected benefits across all pension schemes; and develop national pension dashboards to enable policymakers to have a better view of the sustainability and adequacy of national pension systems.
The Commission also proposed amendments to the IORP II Directive designed to enhance protection for savers; remove barriers to market-driven consolidation; foster economies of scale; and enable occupational pension schemes to operate more efficiently, reduce costs and diversify their investment portfolios. The Commission is also seeking to make the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (“PEPP”) a more attractive, accessible and cost-effective option for savers by proposing amendments to the PEPP Regulations. The proposals to amend the IORP II Directive and PEPP Regulation will now have to be negotiated and agreed by the European Parliament and the Council.
Commission publishes proposal to reform Sustainable Finance Disclosures Regulation (“SFDR”)
On 20 November 2025, the Commission published its legislative proposal to overhaul the SFDR. The reform aims to simplify the regime, address market confusion, and better align disclosure requirements with other EU sustainability frameworks.
In publishing its proposal, the Commission acknowledged that a review of the SFDR had shown that the current framework results in disclosures that are too long and complex, making it difficult for investors to understand and compare the environmental or social characteristics of financial products. Consequently, the reforms proposed by the Commission include the streamlining of disclosure and reporting requirements and the replacement of the current Article 8 and Article 9 designations with a three-tier system to categorise sustainability related financial products.
The proposal will now proceed through the EU legislative process and may be amended before it is finalised. The new regime is expected to apply 18 months after entry into force.
UK updates
From 6 April 2026, all “scheme administrators” of UK registered pension schemes (i.e. the administrator responsible for ensuring the scheme’s compliance with UK pensions tax legislation) must be UK resident.
If a UK registered pension scheme currently has a non-UK resident scheme administrator, the scheme must arrange for the administrator to be removed and (unless a UK resident scheme administrator is already in place) for a replacement administrator to be appointed before 6 April 2026. The removal and appointment of administrators should be recorded on HMRC’s “Managing Pension Schemes” online service. Non-UK resident scheme administrators should also take action to de-enrol themselves from the online service.
HMRC has stated that a UK mailing address or UK c/o address does not in itself make the scheme administrator UK resident. Non-UK resident scheme administrators with such an address should therefore also be removed as scheme administrators before 6 April 2026.
Case law updates
Freddie Jones v Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform & Ors [2026] IEHC 19
This case builds on the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Meara v Minister for Social Protection (2024), which held that denying a widower’s pension to a surviving qualified cohabitant with dependent children was unconstitutional because it treated comparable family situations differently without justification.
In the case of Jones, the High Court held that the Civil Service Spouses’ and Children’s Contributory Pension Scheme (the “Scheme”) is incompatible with Article 40.1 of the Constitution insofar as it excludes qualified cohabitants from survivor benefits.
The applicant had lived in a long‑term, financially interdependent relationship and had been declared a qualified cohabitant under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. His late partner, a civil servant, had paid mandatory contributions to the Scheme throughout his career. The Scheme, however, provides survivor benefits only to spouses and civil partners.
The Court conducted a detailed equality analysis and identified the statutory purpose of the Scheme as providing financial support to the deceased member’s surviving life partner. Crucially, the Scheme assumes that cohabitation fulfils the same support function as marriage when removing or withholding a spouse’s pension (for example, where a surviving spouse is cohabiting with a person other than their spouse at the time of death). Yet, for eligibility, the Scheme solely recognises marriage and civil partnership.
The Court found this internal design fundamentally irrational: the Scheme recognises cohabitation as equivalent to marriage when withdrawing a benefit, but not when granting one. When viewed against the purpose of the Scheme, a surviving qualified cohabitant is in the same social and functional position as a surviving spouse or civil partner. The exclusion of qualified cohabitants was therefore arbitrary, capricious and incapable of justification under Article 40.1 of the Constitution.
The Court granted a declaration that the Scheme’s failure to provide a survivor’s pension to a qualified cohabitant is unconstitutional. Unless overturned on appeal, the judgment has potentially significant implications for public‑sector pension schemes, many of which operate similar survivor‑benefit structures and may now require amendment to comply with constitutional equality standards.
Padraig Browne v Mayo County Council and Padraig Walsh [2026] IEHC 4
Mr Browne worked for Mayo County Council for almost 50 years, retiring in 2008. During his final years he regularly worked substantial overtime. While the Local Government Superannuation Scheme excludes overtime from pensionable remuneration by default, Circular S.12/91 allows certain overtime to be counted where it is compulsory, regular and recurring, and must be performed outside normal hours. The Council initially accepted 6.5 hours per week as pensionable but later reversed this position following further internal reviews and engagement with the Pensions Ombudsman, concluding that no overtime was reckonable. Mr Browne issued High Court proceedings in 2020.
The Court rejected the Council’s attempt to reclassify the dispute as a public law matter, confirming that occupational pension disputes are private law claims, so judicial review procedures and time limits do not apply. Private law limitation periods therefore governed the dispute.
The Court held that an employer owes a continuing duty to pay the correct pension, so a fresh cause of action arises with each underpayment. Mr Browne could therefore recover arrears from October 2014 onward (six years before the date of his claim), though any shortfall in his 2008 lump sum was statute‑barred.
The Court found that nine hours of overtime per week met all of the statutory and contractual criteria for inclusion in pensionable pay. Interpreting the employment contract alongside the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was required to work whatever hours were necessary to perform his role, subject to the statutory 48‑hour weekly limit. The evidence showed that in 95 percent of weeks he worked at least nine hours of overtime driven by the operational realities of road‑repair work: starting an hour earlier to deliver materials before the main workforce arrived and working after normal hours to return the truck to the depot. This pattern meant the overtime was compulsory, regular and recurring, performed at specified times, and inherently part and parcel of the role. As such, it satisfied Circular S.12/91 and should have been included when calculating pensionable remuneration.
As a result, the Court found that Mr Browne is entitled to arrears of pension for the period from October 2014 onwards, with interest to be addressed in later submissions, and his pension must be uplifted on a prospective basis to reflect the nine reckonable hours.
This judgment reinforces that employers and trustees – public and private – must ensure their overtime arrangements, policies and contractual drafting are aligned with working time legislation and accurately reflect how work is performed in practice. Where staff routinely perform overtime that is operationally required, predictable in pattern, and tied to core job functions, pension scheme members may, on foot of this decision, seek to argue overtime should be treated as compulsory even if not expressly labelled as such, with potential consequences for pension ability. The case also highlights that limitation periods are difficult to apply strictly in pension‑related disputes: the courts are inclined to treat each pension underpayment as giving rise to a new cause of action, making it harder for employers or trustees to rely on limitation defences where pension calculations have been incorrectly applied over time.
For more information on anything discussed in this update, please contact a member of our Pensions and Employee Benefits Group.
