Quinn Insurance Ltd (under administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Donnell J.,MacMenamin J.
• Judgment Date: 28 July 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 92
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2020:000072 2012 No. 1540 P
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 28 July 2020

BETWEEN

QUINN INSURANCE LIMITED (UNDER ADMINISTRATION)

PLAINTIFF

AND

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (A FIRM)

DEFENDANT

[2020] IESCDET 92

Clarke C.J.

O'Donnell J.

MacMenamin J.

S:AP:IE:2020:000072

A:AP:IE:2018:000070

2012 No. 1540 P

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Plaintiff to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 21 st April, 2020 ([2020] IECA 109) with a further ruling on the form of order on 18 th June, 2020, and clarification on the ruling 26 th June, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 18 th June, 2020 (as amended, 26 th June, 2020)

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 18 th June, 2020 (as amended, 26 th June, 2020)

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON the 9 th July, 2020, AND WAS IN TIME.

Considerations

1 This determination relates to an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal.

2 The general principles applicable by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution, as a result of the 33 ^rd Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations, and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC DET 134, and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration)[2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called “leapfrog appeal,” direct from the High Court to this Court, can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of this Court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC DET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

3 Furthermore, the application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice, are published, along with this determination, (subject only to any redaction required by law), and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

4 In that context, it should be noted the respondent contends that no issue of general public importance arises in this matter, and is not in the interests of justice that an appeal be granted.

Background

5 This appeal arises from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, ([2020] IECA 109), delivered on the 21 ^st April, 2020, where that court allowed an appeal from an order of the High Court, refusing security for costs in the proceedings, holding that the amount and mode of security was to be determined by the High Court. The precise form of the order was determined by subsequent rulings of the court.

The Case

6 This underlying substantial and complex litigation has been in being since the year 2012. The issues arising may stretch back for a decade or more before that date. The applicant, (Quinn), was incorporated in 1995, and was part of the Quinn Group, a group of companies incorporated in, and operating in the State, and in Northern Ireland. The company had underwriting business of over €1 billion in the financial year ending 31 ^st December, 2013. It was placed under administration by order of the High Court on 30 ^th March, 2010, and joint administrators were appointed. The applicant company is now insolvent, and reliant on funding from the Insurance Compensation Fund (“ICF”), established under the Insurance Act 1964, maintained and administered under the control of the Central Bank of Ireland, and funded through contributions from non-life insurance up to an aggregate of 2% of gross premia purchased in the State.

7 In the proceedings Quinn claims damages for alleged breach of contract, negligence and breach of duty, arising from the manner in which PWC conducted its audits of certain aspects of Quinn business, and its meeting of certain regulatory requirements. The proceedings were admitted to the Commercial Court on 24 ^th July 2013. There is no doubt that the litigation is likely to be lengthy, costly and complex.

The Issues

8 This application arises from a motion for security for costs. In the High Court, Haughton J. refused the application by PWC that Quinn should provide for security for its costs pursuant to s. 52 of the Companies Act 2014 (“the Companies Act”). PWC appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed that order.

9 In the course of its judgment, the Court of Appeal observed that there was no evidence that the making of an order for security for costs would bring an end to the litigation, further pointing out that it had not been argued that any such order would, in its practical effect, stifle the claim, (paras. 79/80). The court considered that, if an order to provide security would not stifle a claim, then a court might consider that this fact alone could tip the...