Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents to support its decision:

• Lough Swilly Shellfish Growers Co-Op Society Ltd. v. Bradley [2013] IESC 16: Established a spectrum for admitting new arguments on appeal, generally discouraging entirely new points unless exceptional.
• Ambrose v. Shevlin [2015] IESC 10: Emphasized the need for final issues to be presented at trial and cautioned against allowing new arguments on appeal to prevent tactical exploitation.
• Hamilton v. Hamilton [1982] IR 466 and Delaney v. Personal Injuries Assessment Board [2024] IESC 10: Highlighted constitutional limits on retrospective legislation affecting vested rights.
• Sweetman v. Shell E & P Ireland Ltd. [2016] IESC 58: Affirmed that legislative changes typically do not apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated.
• Re Article 26 and Health (Amendment)(No.2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7: Recognized property rights under the Constitution and the protection against retrospective legislative interference.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a multi-faceted legal analysis:

• Non-Retroactive Application: Confirmed that the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 and its amendments are not intended to apply retrospectively to existing litigation.
• Preservation of Vested Rights: Cited constitutional protections preventing legislation from adversely affecting existing property rights or ongoing legal actions.
• Absence of Illegality: Determined there was insufficient evidence to classify Cave Projects' actions as illegal under the amended Central Bank regulations.
• Exceptional Circumstances: Found no exceptional circumstances warranting the introduction of the new credit servicing argument at the appellate stage.

The Court emphasized that allowing retrospective application would undermine legal certainty and constitutional protections. It also noted that any such legislative intent would need explicit expression, which was absent in the relevant Acts.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that legislative changes, especially those affecting financial regulations, do not retroactively impact existing proceedings unless explicitly stated. It upholds the integrity of the appellate process by limiting the introduction of new arguments post-trial, thereby encouraging thorough litigation at the trial stage. Future cases involving regulatory changes and their application to ongoing litigation will likely reference this decision to maintain legal certainty and constitutional adherence.

Retrospective Legislation

Retrospective legislation refers to laws that apply to events or actions that occurred before the law was enacted. In this case, the question was whether new regulations on credit servicing firms could affect legal actions that began before these regulations were established.

Credit Servicing

Credit servicing involves activities related to managing and administering credit agreements, such as collecting payments, managing records, and handling complaints. The legislation requires firms performing these activities to be authorized by the Central Bank.

Vested Rights

Vested rights are legal rights that are secure and cannot be taken away by future events or actions. The Court emphasized protecting such rights from being undermined by new legislation.

Summary Judgment

A summary judgment is a legal decision made by a court without a full trial, typically granted when there is no dispute over the essential facts of the case. In this instance, Cave Projects sought summary judgment against Mr. Kelly, which was initially refused.