Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 23121 January 2025

Aviation
In a dispute arising out of operating leases of four aircraft that were validly terminated following an event of default, the Commercial Court has granted anti-suit injunctions to prevent the lessee (a Vietnamese low cost airline) from bringing proceedings before the People’s Court of Hanoi (“PCH”) in Vietnam. The loan agreement, head-lease and sub-lease all contained materially identical clauses that provided for exclusive English jurisdiction in relation to “any disputes that may arise in connection with the legal relationships established by this Agreement”. The court granted anti-suit injunctions to the financing banks as third parties who were entitled to rely on the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the sub-lease. However, FWA’s application for an injunction was rejected as it had been given undertakings by Vietjet during the current English proceedings that should alleviate any concerns that the Vietnamese proceedings might be relied on to resist enforcement of judgment in FWA’s favour. Where undertakings have been given, the court’s general position is to leave them in place, rather than grant an order in their place.
FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited, Natixis, Natixis (Singapore Branch) and BNP Paribas S.A. v Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024

Arbitration
The dispute concerned whether a Thai businessman had been deprived of his rights in relation to the defendant company by various board members of the company. The issue in arbitration was whether a letter of indemnity from the company to the claimants for their ongoing costs of related litigation was valid and binding. The sole arbitrator found against the claimants. The claimants challenged the award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis of serious procedural irregularity. The Commercial Court dismissed the challenge and concluded that the claimants had failed to take proper steps to enable legal representation, the arbitrator had set out the reasons for her award in clear, detailed and sufficient terms and had a discretion as to what evidence to admit and how to evaluate such evidence. There had therefore been no serious irregularity by the arbitrator in refusing to adjourn the evidential hearing, declining to admit certain evidence from the claimants or test certain evidence from the defendants, nor in not exhaustively addressing all evidence or arguments raised.
Collins and others v Wind Energy Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 40 (Comm), 14 January 2025

Enforcement
A Danish judgment given in August 2013 has been refused enforcement in England. The judgment was registered for enforcement using the appropriate formalities and a registration order was validly made. However, the judgment became statute barred in Denmark ten years after the date on which it was made. As a matter of English law (and the Judgments Regulation 44/2001 that was applicable to this case), a judgment is only enforceable in England as long as it remains enforceable in the originating state. Registering it in the receiving state on time does not prevent this principle applying.
Olsen and another v Finansial Stabilitet A/S [2025] EWHC 42 (KB), 16 January 2025

Jurisdiction – Service
The defendants to a libel and conspiracy claim sought to set aside service of a claim form on them out of the jurisdiction (in Greece, Cyprus and Israel) on the basis that England was not the appropriate forum for the claim. The judge refused three out of four of the applications. The English courts were the forum with which both actions had the most real and substantial connection because the statements were published in England and Wales and caused damage to the claimant’s reputation in England and Wales. Further, the claim was centrally concerned with a campaign of publications published in England to an English audience in the English language. There was no other suitable forum, not least because none of the defendants were domiciled in any single foreign jurisdiction. The application by the second defendant was allowed on the basis that the cause of action had no real prospect of success.
Marinakis v Karipidis and others [2025] EWHC 13 (KB), 10 January 2025

Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams: