![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> SPC Aviation Ltd v Air Link One Ltd [2020] EWHC 1419 (Comm) (04 June 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2020/1419.html Cite as: [2020] EWHC 1419 (Comm) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
SPC AVIATION LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
AIR LINK ONE LIMITED |
Defendant |
____________________
Miss Hannah Laithwaite (instructed by Treon Law) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 22 May 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to BAILII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 04 June 2020.
Mrs Justice Moulder :
Late evidence
Claim
"any charter by demise of the aircraft by the claimant to the defendant has come to an end by reason of the sale and transfer of the aircraft from the claimant to the new third-party owner."
Background
"Heads of Terms -Sale of G-OCFT (SPCA to ALO)
Agreement dated 28th December 2016"
"For good order I have written to the CAA with the request for the change of registered title details for G-OCFT.
We should have a reply within 24 hours…
As agreed this is not a transfer of ownership as that will occur when the loan is paid up in full.
Transfer of title is to assist ALO to collect the aircraft from GAMA"
"in contemplation of the proposed sale to the defendant the claimant was advised by the introducing broker…that the defendant should be registered as the charterer by demise in place of GAMA."
"The new owner now wishes to have free and unfettered access to its goods, would you be so good and accommodate this…
As it sits presently my understanding is that Air Link One will be in touch with you during today to arrange collection of the aircraft."
"…
We write to confirm that any charter by demise in favour of Air Link One Limited is, for the avoidance of doubt, immediately terminated herewith.
We enclose for your signature a completed form CA71 notifying the Civil Aviation Authority that the charter is terminated. We request that you immediately sign and send to the Civil Aviation Authority in accordance with your obligations pursuant to the air navigation order…"
Procedural history
Relevant legal principles on summary judgment
"The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if –
(a) it considers that –
(i) that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or
(ii) that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."
"i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a "realistic" as opposed to a "fanciful" prospect of success..;"
ii) A "realistic" claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable...;
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a "mini-trial"…;
iv)This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents..;
v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial…;
vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case…;
vii) On the other hand it is not uncommon for an application under Pt 24 to give rise to a short point of law or construction and, if the court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and that the parties have had an adequate opportunity to address it in argument, it should grasp the nettle and decide it. The reason is quite simple: if the respondent's case is bad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant's case is bad in law, the sooner that is determined, the better. If it is possible to show by evidence that although material in the form of documents or oral evidence that would put the documents in another light is not currently before the court, such material is likely to exist and can be expected to be available at trial, it would be wrong to give summary judgment because there would be a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success. However, it is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction…."
Charter by demise
Submissions
i) it is clear from the documents that there was no binding agreement in 2016 between the claimant and the defendant and even if there was a binding agreement, the Heads of Terms were an agreement for lease not an actual lease;
ii) any charter by demise has come to an end: if there was any doubt, by letter of 29 November 2019 from the claimant's solicitors any charter was terminated; and
iii) even if there were a binding agreement in 2016, that alleged agreement is irrelevant to the question as to whether the defendant can assert that it is now a charterer by demise: the defendant has never been in possession of the Aircraft and is not in possession now; once the Aircraft had been transferred to a new owner there could be no charter by demise as ownership and possession have passed to the third party.
i) whilst it is usual for it to be a term of a charter by demise that the lessee will take possession of, and operate, the aircraft in question, a delay in taking possession of an aircraft for whatever reason (here, because of the actions of a third party in refusing to release the Aircraft to the defendant) or in operating the same, does not undermine a charter by demise which will subsist unless lawfully terminated, rescinded or otherwise avoided according to normal contractual principles;
ii) in light of the fact that the defendant's interest under the charter by demise has not been terminated, the defendant is entitled to remain on the Register.
Discussion
i) there was a binding agreement in 2016 which gave rise to an interest in the Aircraft which entitled the defendant to be registered as a charterer by demise (a "Relevant Agreement");
ii) if there was such a legally binding Relevant Agreement, that Relevant Agreement has not been terminated.
"was prevented by [GAMA's] refusal to release the [Aircraft] and fell through".
"It is admitted that the Claimant has produced a written agreement dated 28 December 2016 for the sale by the claimant of the aircraft to Air Link One Limited as an "as seen" basis.
The claimant has held the agreement to sell out as genuine, as negotiated at arm's length between independent parties and as binding.
…
"Insofar as [paragraph 73 of the amended particulars of claim] is intended to suggest that the terms of the agreement to sell allow the buyer to withdraw from the purchase because of this dispute or the defendants' assertion of a lien, it is specifically denied. The agreement to sell appears to contain no such term. On the claimant's own case (in the claimant's letter of 15 May 2017), the effect of the defendants' assertion of a lien is to defer the commencement of the payment of instalments of the purchase price." [emphasis added]
Whilst the proceedings were settled and thus the respective cases set out in the pleadings were never tested, it is relevant in my view to note the position of the claimant apparently adopted in those proceedings with regard to the binding nature of the Heads of Terms and their effect which appears to be inconsistent with the submissions on this application.
i) the defendant sought an extension of time for filing the defence and yet before that application had been considered, the claimant filed its application for summary judgment;
ii) whilst it was open to the claimant to make such an application, it then informed the defendant (which at that time was not represented) that it was not obliged to file a defence; whilst this was the position under the rules, in my view the claimant cannot then criticise the defendant for having failed to set out its defence;
iii) during April it would appear that Mr Fetaimia was unwell: the extent of his illness is unclear but at this present time the court cannot disregard his evidence that he was unwell over a period of weeks and he did obtain a doctor's note that he was unfit to attend court last week.
Conclusion
Declaratory relief
"generally speaking the court should leave until after trial the decision whether or not to grant declaratory relief "
Scarman LJ was there referring to allegations of fraud, misfeasance and breach of trust and it was said that different considerations apply when what is sought is a money or property judgment. However Scarman LJ went on to say that the power of the court to give declaratory relief upon a default pleading should be exercised only in cases in which to deny it would be to "impose injustice" upon the claimant.
"…, when considering whether to grant a declaration or not, the court should take into account justice to the claimant, justice to the defendant, whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose and whether there are any other special reasons why or why not the court should grant the declaration."