The Supreme Court has ordered Quinn Insurance Limited, which is under administration, to provide further particulars in its negligence and breach of contract case against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) over audits of Quinn’s accounts and regulatory returns for 2005 to 2008.
In a judgment delivered on 8 March 2019, the court allowed PwC’s appeal on four requests for particulars. It set aside the Court of Appeal’s order, restored the High Court order and directed Quinn to respond within six weeks, unless the parties agreed more time or the High Court directed otherwise.
The requests concern why Quinn says its technical provisions for future insurance claims were materially understated. The Supreme Court said Quinn must explain either directly why it contends the Quinn and Milliman figures were wrong, or indirectly by reference to the recalculation carried out by Mazars. The court said the particulars could be qualified to reflect limits in the information available and the wait for discovery of PwC’s audit papers.
The order covers particulars 11(3) II, V, VIII and XI. It is subject to a specific qualification: if Quinn did not calculate the financial effect of each reason it gives for the alleged understatement, it may say that it did not do so, rather than provide an effect it has not worked out.
Quinn’s underlying claim alleges that technical provisions in the relevant years’ accounts were materially misstated. The judgment records that the claim may amount to as much as €800 million. These are allegations in ongoing proceedings; the Supreme Court’s decision concerned the level of detail Quinn must provide before trial, not whether PwC was negligent or liable.
The case followed earlier decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal on PwC’s application to compel replies to particulars. The Supreme Court said that complex cases may require more detailed particulars, which can help define the issues and limit costly discovery and preparation. It also acknowledged that Quinn had already supplied substantial detail and that the case was at an early stage before discovery.