UK Court Won’t Entertain Unspecific Defences
The High Court[1] recently granted summary judgment in favour of two aircraft lessors in a dispute arising from the leasing of two ATR 72-600 aircraft, ultimately subleased to an Indian airline called “FlyBig”, pursuant to a head-lease / sub-lease structure. Under the documents, the defendant airline operated the aircraft and provided direct contractual indemnities in favour of the claimant lessor, who also benefitted from security assignments of the sub-leases. Following sustained non-payment of rent, the leasing of the aircraft was terminated, and the lessor subsequently sought recovery of outstanding amounts.
After seeking recovery from the lessee without success, the lessors applied for summary judgment in respect of unpaid rent, supplemental rent, late payment charges and indemnified costs, totalling just over USD 1.1 million. The defendant initially failed to respond to a claim form, before responding with a witness statement that indicated agreement with much of the lessors’ position, before then attempting to submit new defences, served late, on multiple grounds, including:
- challenges to the effectiveness of the assignments;
- arguments that the lessee should have been joined to the proceedings (as assignor under the security assignments);
- alleged non-compliance with the Cape Town Convention (in particular the requirement of commercial reasonableness on termination);
- claims that late payment charges amounted to unenforceable penalties; and
- assertions of set-off against security deposits.
The court did not look kindly on the delays by the defendant but in any event found that none of the proposed defences had a realistic prospect of success. Relief from sanctions imposed for late submission of defences was refused, with the court emphasising the absence of a good reason for the delay and the lack of materiality of the late evidence. Taking each of the proposed defences in turn, the court held that joinder of the lessee was unnecessary, that undisputed payment defaults defeated any Cape Town Convention defence, and that the contractual charging and indemnity provisions were enforceable in accordance with their terms.
As a result, summary judgment was entered for the lessors, together with interest and costs under the terms of the indemnity provisions of the agreements.
Vedder Thinking | Articles UK Court Won’t Entertain Unspecific Defences
Article
December 22, 2025
The High Court[1] recently granted summary judgment in favour of two aircraft lessors in a dispute arising from the leasing of two ATR 72-600 aircraft, ultimately subleased to an Indian airline called “FlyBig”, pursuant to a head-lease / sub-lease structure. Under the documents, the defendant airline operated the aircraft and provided direct contractual indemnities in favour of the claimant lessor, who also benefitted from security assignments of the sub-leases. Following sustained non-payment of rent, the leasing of the aircraft was terminated, and the lessor subsequently sought recovery of outstanding amounts.
After seeking recovery from the lessee without success, the lessors applied for summary judgment in respect of unpaid rent, supplemental rent, late payment charges and indemnified costs, totalling just over USD 1.1 million. The defendant initially failed to respond to a claim form, before responding with a witness statement that indicated agreement with much of the lessors’ position, before then attempting to submit new defences, served late, on multiple grounds, including:
- challenges to the effectiveness of the assignments;
- arguments that the lessee should have been joined to the proceedings (as assignor under the security assignments);
- alleged non-compliance with the Cape Town Convention (in particular the requirement of commercial reasonableness on termination);
- claims that late payment charges amounted to unenforceable penalties; and
- assertions of set-off against security deposits.
The court did not look kindly on the delays by the defendant but in any event found that none of the proposed defences had a realistic prospect of success. Relief from sanctions imposed for late submission of defences was refused, with the court emphasising the absence of a good reason for the delay and the lack of materiality of the late evidence. Taking each of the proposed defences in turn, the court held that joinder of the lessee was unnecessary, that undisputed payment defaults defeated any Cape Town Convention defence, and that the contractual charging and indemnity provisions were enforceable in accordance with their terms.
As a result, summary judgment was entered for the lessors, together with interest and costs under the terms of the indemnity provisions of the agreements.
