Price Waterhouse Cooper (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent, formerly a substantial household and motor insurer, entered administration in 2010 with an acknowledged deficit of approximately €1.6 billion. Its only remaining asset is the present litigation against the Appellant, its auditors during the material years 2005–2008. The Respondent alleges that its “technical provisions” (estimates of future liabilities calculated with actuarial assistance) were materially understated in each of those years. A subsequent review by another firm of accountants concluded that the understatement led to transactions and omissions causing up to €800 million in loss.

During interlocutory exchanges, the Appellant sought “full and better particulars” identifying the specific reasons for the alleged under-statement. The High Court ordered the particulars; the Court of Appeal reversed that order. The Appellant now seeks leave from the Supreme Court to appeal the Court of Appeal’s refusal to compel those particulars.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under Article 34.5.3 of the Constitution, the proposed appeal meets the threshold of “a matter of general public importance” or “the interests of justice” so as to justify Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether, in complex commercial litigation, a defendant is entitled to particulars explaining why the plaintiff alleges that its own technical provisions were erroneous, or whether such detail is properly a matter for evidence at trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Article 34.5.3(ii) (“interests of justice”) employs broad, indeterminate language comparable to concepts such as fairness or reasonableness; therefore the Supreme Court can and should grant leave whenever it forms a prima facie view of possible error in the lower court.
• The request for particulars is narrow, focused, and justified by the scale and complexity of the litigation; without the particulars the Appellant cannot fairly meet the case.

Respondent's Arguments

• The interlocutory nature of the order and established principles on pleadings do not raise any matter of general public importance.
• The “interests of justice” limb is residual; it cannot be satisfied merely by an allegation that the Court of Appeal erred.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge O’Donnell, delivering the judgment, examined Article 34.5.3 in detail:

• Interests of Justice (Art 34.5.3(ii)): The Court rejected the Appellant’s expansive construction. If “interests of justice” were satisfied whenever an error were merely arguable, every Court of Appeal decision would be open to Supreme Court review, undermining the constitutional scheme that makes Court of Appeal judgments “final and conclusive” in most cases. The phrase is a residual category, engaged only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., where a new point arises in the Court of Appeal, or where cross-appeals would otherwise be barred).
• General Public Importance (Art 34.5.3(i)): Although the appeal is interlocutory, the Court acknowledged that pleadings and particulars govern all litigation. Divergent High Court and Court of Appeal outcomes and the tension between complex-commercial and personal-injury pleading standards demonstrate uncertainty warranting clarification. The issue therefore possesses general applicability beyond the instant case.
• Nature of Interlocutory Appeals: While the Court reaffirmed that leave is rarely granted at interlocutory stages, it recognised that the scale of this litigation and the clear legal question—whether certain particulars must be supplied—presented a suitable vehicle to address the broader principle.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED.

The Supreme Court will hear the substantive appeal on whether further particulars should be ordered in complex commercial litigation. Immediately, this permits the Appellant to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling. More broadly, the forthcoming appeal is poised to clarify the constitutional thresholds for Supreme Court jurisdiction and to provide authoritative guidance on the distinction between pleadings and evidence in demanding commercial cases.