Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (Approved) (Rev 1) [2021] IESC 15 (22 March 2021)

Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (Approved) (Rev 1) [2021] IESC 15 (22 March 2021)

The Supreme Court held that while QIL established, on a prima facie basis, that its inability to pay costs stemmed from PwC's alleged wrongdoing, and that the public interest argument was insufficient to meet the high threshold required for a special circumstance, the court retains discretion to order security for costs even where special circumstances are established. The key factor is whether the order would stifle the claim; in this case, there was no evidence that an order for security would stifle QIL's claim. Therefore, the balance of justice favored ordering security for costs.

Citation
[2021] IESC 15
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration); Defendant/respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order for security for costs affirmed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Special Circumstances Exception, Public Interest Litigation, Auditor Liability, Corporate Insolvency
Civil Procedure Corporate Law Professional Negligence Security for Costs Special Circumstances Exception Public Interest Litigation Auditor Liability Corporate Insolvency

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration)

Applicant/appellant

PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to refuse security for costs where inability to pay is alleged to be caused by defendant's wrongdoing
  2. 2 Whether public interest in the litigation constitutes a special circumstance to refuse security for costs
  3. 3 Whether security for costs may be ordered even if special circumstances are established, particularly if the order would not stifle the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while QIL established, on a prima facie basis, that its inability to pay costs stemmed from PwC's alleged wrongdoing, and that the public interest argument was insufficient to meet the high threshold required for a special circumstance, the court retains discretion to order security for costs even where special circumstances are established. The key factor is whether the order would stifle the claim; in this case, there was no evidence that an order for security would stifle QIL's claim. Therefore, the balance of justice favored ordering security for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order for security for costs affirmed.

Orders

  • QIL to provide security for costs as ordered by the Court of Appeal.