Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) -v- PriceWaterhouseCoopers (A Firm) [2017] IECA 94 (21 March 2017)

Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) -v- PriceWaterhouseCoopers (A Firm) [2017] IECA 94 (21 March 2017)

Requests for particulars must be limited to clarifying the scope of the pleadings and defining the issues, not requiring disclosure of evidence or expert reports. In complex litigation, a broad outline suffices; detailed breakdowns and factual narratives are inadmissible as particulars. The High Court's orders were upheld or overturned based on whether the requests related to material facts or sought evidence.

Citation
[2017] IECA 94
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration); Defendant/respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; High Court orders varied accordingly.
Legal Topics
Particulars in Pleadings, Auditor Liability, Technical Provisions, Discovery, Causation, Under Provisioning, Cost Saving Measures
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Insurance Law Particulars in Pleadings Auditor Liability Technical Provisions Discovery Causation +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration)

Plaintiff/appellant

PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of particulars in complex litigation
  2. 2 Entitlement to particulars regarding alleged under-provisioning
  3. 3 Entitlement to particulars regarding cost-saving measures and loss-making business

Ratio Decidendi

Requests for particulars must be limited to clarifying the scope of the pleadings and defining the issues, not requiring disclosure of evidence or expert reports. In complex litigation, a broad outline suffices; detailed breakdowns and factual narratives are inadmissible as particulars. The High Court's orders were upheld or overturned based on whether the requests related to material facts or sought evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; High Court orders varied accordingly.

Orders

  • QIL's appeal allowed regarding particulars seeking reasons for alleged under-provisioning and detailed breakdowns of cost-saving measures.
  • High Court's order upheld requiring QIL to provide particulars of contemporaneous information and data relevant to audits.