The Supreme Court has granted Price Waterhouse Cooper leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision in a dispute with Quinn Insurance Limited over whether Quinn must explain why its estimates of future insurance liabilities were allegedly understated.
The ruling, delivered by O’Donnell J. on 12 December 2017, concerns permission to appeal an interlocutory decision. The Court did not decide whether Quinn must provide the requested particulars or whether its estimates were understated. It found that the appeal met the constitutional threshold for leave because the issue was of general public importance.
Quinn, now under administration, alleges that its technical provisions — estimates of future liabilities prepared with actuarial advice — were understated in each of the years 2005 to 2008. It says the alleged understatements led to transactions with associated businesses that otherwise would not have occurred and a failure to remedy its financial position when that was possible. The judgment says Quinn alleges damage of up to €800 million.
Price Waterhouse Cooper, which audited Quinn during the relevant years, sought particulars identifying the reasons for each alleged understatement and the financial effect of each reason. Quinn replied that its case was adequately pleaded and that the request sought matters for evidence, including expert evidence, at trial.
The High Court had ordered Quinn to provide the particulars. The Court of Appeal reversed that part of the High Court decision, reasoning that the request fell outside the ordinary scope of a notice for particulars. Price Waterhouse Cooper then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
O’Donnell J. said an alleged error by the Court of Appeal, on its own, did not make an appeal necessary in the interests of justice. The Court also noted that interlocutory appeals will rarely meet the threshold, as such orders do not usually determine a case and appeals can delay trial.
But the judgments below had reached opposing conclusions on how established rules about particulars applied to this complex commercial dispute. The Supreme Court said the distinction between matters that must be pleaded and matters that belong to evidence can be difficult to apply. The issue could affect litigation generally, and the case concerned particulars of something done or not done by the plaintiff, rather than an allegation about a defendant’s conduct.
The Court therefore granted leave on the grounds specified in paragraph 6(1) of the application. The judgment does not give the result of any later appeal.