Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (Approved) [2021] IESC 15_2 (22 March 2021)

Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (Approved) [2021] IESC 15_2 (22 March 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, that its inability to pay costs was due to the alleged wrongdoing of the defendant as required by the Connaughton Road test. The Court further held that the fact the claim would not be stifled by an order for security was a central and relevant consideration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and security for costs was warranted.

Citation
[2021] IESC 15_2
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
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Corporate Litigation, Balance of Injustice
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Corporate Litigation Balance of Injustice

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a company plaintiff under s.52 of the Companies Act 2014
  2. 2 Whether the inability to pay costs is due to the alleged wrongdoing of the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the requirement to provide security would stifle the plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, that its inability to pay costs was due to the alleged wrongdoing of the defendant as required by the Connaughton Road test. The Court further held that the fact the claim would not be stifled by an order for security was a central and relevant consideration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and security for costs was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Security for costs ordered against the plaintiff
  • No reconsideration of the Connaughton Road test required