Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm) [2019] IESC 13 (08 March 2019)

Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm) [2019] IESC 13 (08 March 2019)

In complex auditor negligence litigation, the plaintiff must provide detailed particulars of why it alleges technical provisions were materially understated, either directly or by reference to its recalculation exercise, subject to the limits of information available and pending discovery. The refusal to provide such particulars on the basis that they are matters of evidence is not justified at this stage.

Citation
[2019] IESC 13
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration); Defendant/appellant: Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Court of Appeal set aside; order of High Court restored.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Particulars, Auditor Negligence, Insurance Regulation, Discovery, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Commercial Law Pleadings Particulars Auditor Negligence Insurance Regulation Discovery +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration)

Plaintiff/respondent

Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What level of particularisation is required in pleadings and replies to particulars in complex auditor negligence litigation?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff obliged to provide detailed reasons and financial effects for alleged understatements in technical provisions prior to discovery?

Ratio Decidendi

In complex auditor negligence litigation, the plaintiff must provide detailed particulars of why it alleges technical provisions were materially understated, either directly or by reference to its recalculation exercise, subject to the limits of information available and pending discovery. The refusal to provide such particulars on the basis that they are matters of evidence is not justified at this stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Court of Appeal set aside; order of High Court restored.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to respond to particulars 11(3) II, V, VIII and XI within six weeks, subject to the qualification regarding financial effect if not calculated.