Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) v Pricewaterhousecoopers (Approved) Rev 1)

Concurring Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 22nd day of March, 2021

4.������ I entirely agree with the Chief Justice that the process of arriving at a figure for security for costs must, to a large extent, be a mathematical exercise. But such exercises are always predicated on the fullness and validity of what might be called the �data input�, in this case evidence. Even the best, and most rigorous conclusion, can be called into question when there is insufficient data as an input. Yet, as matters stand, courts are frequently requested, at quite an early stage, to make what may be a �once and for all� determination as to a sum for security for costs.

6.������ This is not to say, of course, that a defendant should be precluded from a proportionate degree of protection until a more informed decision can be made. But, in future substantial cases, it seems to me, there would be much to be said for approaching such applications on a step-by-step, or staged basis. Thus, in cases where discovery is not made, a court might nonetheless make an interim order for security, based only, at that point, on the potential range of costs for discovery.

7.������ On completion of the discovery process, it might then be open to a defendant to make a further application for security, having in mind the costs of a potential hearing.

10.���� I would, therefore, reserve to a future case a further consideration of the principles which might be applicable in security for costs applications in substantial cases of this type.