Pay transparency
Ireland has notified the European Commission of a delay in transposing the EU’s pay transparency directive into Irish law, missing the deadline of 7 June 2026.
The directive introduces mandatory gender pay gap reporting for employers with more than 100 staff, but as there are member state options within the directive, the exact size of employer to which this will apply will not be confirmed until the legislation has been enacted.
The directive requires employers with 250+ employees to report annually, while those with 100–249 will report every three years. Reports must disclose differences in pay and bonuses between male and female employees. Where a gender pay gap of 5% or more cannot be objectively justified or corrected within six months, employers must carry out a joint pay assessment with employee representatives.
Salary ranges must be disclosed to candidates before interview
Article 5 of the directive introduces new transparency obligations in recruitment and employment practices. Salary ranges must be disclosed to candidates before interview, and employers will be prohibited from asking about salary history. Employees will have the right to request pay information for comparable roles by gender.
Implementation will now proceed on a phased basis although large parts of the requirements have been addressed in the Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021. Following a minor amendment to this legislation, the Gender Pay Gap Portal will be operational for the November 2026 reporting cycle.
Employers will not be penalised for not having all elements of the directive’s requirements in place by June 2026. The Department of Children, Disability and Equality is developing supporting resources, including a dedicated Irish employer gender-neutral job evaluation toolkit and related employer training.
Corporate insolvency
The EU’s corporate insolvency directive aims to harmonise key parts of insolvency law across EU member states to make cross-border investment and business restructuring more predictable and efficient. It introduces common rules and procedures (which will require changes to the law in Ireland) including:
- the creation of a supervised fast-sale process for distressed businesses before liquidation (so-called prepack liquidations)
- a stricter time limit for directors to put a company into liquidation
- some minor harmonisations of lookback periods and creditor protection
- better cross-border asset tracing powers for liquidators, such as easier access to foreign bank accounts.
Member states must transpose the corporate insolvency directive into national law by 2029.
Structured digital reporting
The UK’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published its latest review of structured digital reporting by UK-listed companies, identifying areas where relatively simple improvements would significantly enhance the quality, consistency and usability of the reporting.
It also highlights recurring issues that continue to limit the usefulness of structured data for investors, regulators and other users.
Disciplinary cases
The FRC’s reports on UK cases against accountants and auditors provide more generally applicable insight into the traps that auditors in particular can sometimes unknowingly fall into. They include the following:
- the auditors not realising that the client was a public interest entity (PIE), and so failing to implement all the additional requirements for PIE audits including the prohibition on the provision of certain non-audit services
- the auditors not understanding the client’s internet streaming business and risk, as required by ISA 315, which led to the audit being largely ineffective
- the auditors failing to understand the operations of a private bank that was part of a large group of unconsolidated entities under common ownership, resulting in a fine of £2.8m for the firm
- the audit firm being non-compliant with the requirement for mandatory audit rotation after 10 years for PIE audits without renewal via a qualifying public tender
- the audit firm creating ‘false audit evidence, causing auditor’s reports to be issued without approval from the relevant audit engagement partner, and inserting electronic copies of the audit engagement partners’ signatures in auditor’s reports without their approval’.
