Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court allows appeal from Court of Appeal, and restores order made by High Court that a plaintiff be required to provide further and better particulars of a complex claim for professional negligence against auditors who allegedly significantly and materially understated the level of 'technical provision' required of the plaintiff insurance company (in administration), where the initial figures relied on by the auditors had been provided by the plaintiff's own actuaries, on the grounds that: (a) an appeal court should be slow to interfere with an order made by a trial judge in case management; (b) the provision of detailed particulars in a complex case such as this should assist in reducing the amount of discovery required; and (c) the delivery of the required particulars should help tighten the focus of the case and reduce the scale and cost of the work which would need to be undertaken to prepare for it.
O'Donnell J (nem diss): Large and complex case - particulars of claim to provide in pleadings - facts rather than law or evidence - claim by insurance company in administration against its accountants and auditors for breach of contract and negligence - claim amounting to €800m - difficulty for administrators to obtain information or evidence from principals of company prior to collapse - substantial insurance company - 'technical provisions' - whether figure for technical provisions had been significantly and materially understated - actuarial exercise - company's own actuaries not available to provide information - professional negligence - motion for particulars - appeal in relation to four particulars - "please specify the reasons and the financial effect of each reason for the alleged understatement identified by the Plaintiff in its re-estimation of the Plaintiff’s technical provisions" - "What do you say are the errors in your own estimates of the technical provisions attested to by your own actuary and approved by your own Board?" - litigation a 'game of inches' - need to win 'all of the small collisions' - risk of prejudicing the case by providing the defendant with evidential information prior to discovery - O. 19, r. 7 (1) RSC - nature of the case being made - statement in summary form of the material facts - degree of particularisation - role of appellate court in interfering with decision of case management judge - treating notice for particulars as a questionnaire.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now