Off the record. Proposed changes to disclosure requirements for directors of Irish registered companies

Report from the CLRG

This consultation followed a report published by the Company Law Review Group (CLRG) in September 2025, the substance of which set out that the present disclosure requirements potentially posed significant safety and security concerns for officers of Irish registered companies. The report from the CLRG also outlined that the present legal position raised possible security concerns for individuals connected to the relevant company officers that may reside at the same address. Potential data protection issues covered under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 were also raised by the CLRG.

Ireland is one of only a few common law jurisdictions which places an onus on directors to disclose their full residential address in the public domain and the CLRG recognised this in their report including that Ireland is somewhat of an outlier compared with other jurisdictions, particularly the UK which, since 2009 has enabled company officers to provide a service address for public disclosure.

Change on the horizon

There was general consensus that this legislative change has been impending since the decision of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) in November 2022 (the “Sovum Decision”) which held that the provision within the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) that ensures information on beneficial owners is accessible in all cases to any member of the general public is invalid and constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. The CJEU stated that as these fundamental rights are enshrined within the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the requirements of 5AMLD needed to be balanced with an individual’s right to privacy and the protection of one’s personal data, and therefore ultimately found it to be disproportionate. You can read more on the Sovim Decision in our previous article HERE. This led to the Registrar of Beneficial Ownership in Ireland to completely restrict public access to personal information of beneficial owners of Irish registered companies.

The present legal position

The 2014 Act requires companies to keep a register of directors and secretaries which must contain the usual residential address of each officer. These residential addresses must also be disclosed on certain filings with the Companies Registration Office (CRO) and such filings are available to the public.

There is a limited exemption to this requirement available under section 150(11) of the 2014 Act which allows directors, under very limited circumstances, to make an application to An Garda Siochána (the Irish police) in respect of a supporting statement that the residential address of the director(s) in question should not be publicly disclosed (the “Supporting Statement”). The Supporting Statement must be approved and signed by a member of An Garda Siochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent and it must accompany a formal application to the Registrar of companies for the non-disclosure of the director’s address. The actual threshold to be met for the granting of such Supporting Statements is not particularly clear however, and the applications are usually made on the basis of safeguarding the personal safety of the director in question as well as their family. You can read more on this exemption in our previous article HERE.

What is proposed?

The proposals include the following:

• Directors and secretaries would provide a “contact address” rather than their residential address and this would be disclosed in all relevant filings with the CRO. This could be their usual residential address, the company’s registered office or some other address within the state but must be effective for service of documents on the officer;
• Such contact address would be the only publicly available address for the director or secretary in question but the CRO and the company will continue to be required to keep a record of the officer’s actual residential address. The actual residential address can only disclosed to certain prescribed persons such as an Garda Siochána, Revenue etc.;
• The proposed changes will not have retrospective effect; and
• Section 150(11) of the 2014 Act (as mentioned above) would be repealed and those who previously availed of the exemption would continue to use the company’s registered office or another address as their contact address, however they will be required to provide the Company and the CRO with their actual residential address (which will not be disclosed publicly).

In addition to the above it is proposed that a legislative change to residential address disclosure requirements would also apply to external companies registered under Part 21 of the 2014 Act.

Retrospective effect

It is significantly noteworthy that the CLRG did not recommend that any legislative change have retrospective effect and any change would only apply from the date of the enactment of any act to amend the principal 2014 Act. This is primarily due to the CRO highlighting that retrospective applicability and redaction of previous filings made to the CRO would result in substantial cost and would require considerable resources. In its submission to the consultation, the Law Society of Ireland (the “Law Society”) rebutted the CRO’s reasoning for opposing retrospective applicability saying that it “does not stand up to scrutiny” and that advances in technology relating to data redaction meant that such retrospective removal “could be achieved in a cost effective and timely way”. The Law Society further argued that the “continued public availability of residential addresses contained in historic CRO filings constitutes a disproportionate interference with the privacy, security, and personal safety of relevant officers and their family members, co-residents, and neighbours”. In that regard, the Law Society recommended that Ireland follow the UK position and confer upon the CRO limited powers (as are conferred upon Companies House in the UK) to enable it, on application by a relevant officer to redact or remove historic residential addresses from public record.

A response from the Department on the consultation is expected later this year and we will keep you abreast of any updates.

If any of the preceding affects you, our highly skilled company secretarial team can provide assistance and advice on this and on all aspects of company law and corporate governance.

For further information, please contact a member of our company secretarial team. 

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While reasonable care is taken to ensure accuracy, the material contained within may not reflect the most current legal developments. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims liability for actions taken based on the materials. Always consult a qualified lawyer for specific legal matters.