Case‑Management Stays Pending Foreign Proceedings: Irish High Court Sets “Strong Reasons” Threshold Where Policies Select Exclusive Irish Jurisdiction

Introduction

This commentary examines the judgment of the High Court of Ireland in WWTAI Airopco II DAC & Anor v Global Aerospace Underwriting Managers [Europe] SAS & Ors ([2025] IEHC 452), delivered by Quinn J on 7 August 2025. The case arises from losses suffered by aircraft lessors following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Government’s subsequent measures, and international sanctions. The plaintiffs, part of the FTAI Aviation Limited group, sued numerous insurers under Irish-law governed lessor policies issued to Azex entities (the “Azex policies”).

Parallel proceedings are underway in England and Wales concerning operator-level policies issued to Azur Air LLC (the “Azur policies”), a Russian operator. The defendants sought (i) a stay of the Irish proceedings pending determination of the English proceedings and/or (ii) a strike‑out on prematurity and related grounds. The Court refused both applications.

At the core of the decision is the management of multi-forum insurance litigation when policies include a choice-of-law and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the insured’s domicile. The Court articulates a structured set of principles governing when an Irish proceeding may be stayed for foreign litigation and highlights party conduct and the risk of indeterminate delay as key determinants.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court refused the defendants’ applications for a stay of the Irish proceedings pending the English Operator Policy litigation (paras 1–3, 55–59, 147).
The Court also refused the alternative application to strike out the plaintiffs’ claims as premature or bound to fail (paras 55, 148–153).
Quinn J distilled and applied principles from Irish and English authorities. A stay pending foreign proceedings requires strong reasons; the likely benefits must clearly outweigh the disadvantages to the plaintiff (paras 108–116). Where the parties have conferred exclusive Irish jurisdiction, “exceptionally strong grounds” are necessary (para 115(11)).
On the facts, a stay would cause indeterminate delay; the English trial’s scope and timing are uncertain; and any outcome would not bind the Irish parties or finally resolve the Irish issues (paras 121–126, 144). Furthermore, the duplication of costs complained of by insurers is largely a consequence of their own contractual jurisdiction clause and their decision to fragment the litigation (paras 128–139, 145).
The Court emphasised the plaintiff’s entitlement to have its Irish-law governed claims heard expeditiously in the agreed forum (paras 133–139).
On strike‑out, questions about the trigger for contingent cover and the scope of “direct” cover are matters for trial, not interlocutory resolution (paras 150–153).

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Irish authorities

Kalix Fund Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd [2010] 2 IR 581 (Clarke J) (paras 101–104): Recognised the court’s broad case-management powers, including staying proceedings to avoid duplication and inconsistent determinations. Crucially, Kalix concerned multiple proceedings within the same jurisdiction, enabling a single judge to manage and determine overlapping issues.
Avoncore Ltd v Leeson Motors Ltd [2021] IEHC 163 (McDonald J) (paras 101, 105–106): Summarised Kalix principles and underscored proportionality, efficiency, and plaintiffs’ entitlement to expeditious determination.

Quinn J drew from these cases to frame Irish case-management discretion but emphasised a key difference: unlike Kalix and Avoncore, the Irish Court cannot link or manage English proceedings (paras 120–121, 142). This limitation became pivotal in rejecting a stay.

English authorities

Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International [2000] 1 WLR 173 (paras 108–110): A stay in favour of foreign arbitration may be appropriate only for “very strong reasons” and where benefits clearly outweigh disadvantages to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal endorsed the “rare and compelling circumstances” standard.
MAD Atelier International BV v Manes [2020] EWHC 1014 (Comm) (paras 111–112): Reinforced the “rare and compelling” threshold and cautioned that fear of inconsistent judgments generally does not justify a stay; stays are especially hard to justify where the court has exclusive jurisdiction.
Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] 1 WLR 4570 (para 113): Confirmed broad inherent jurisdiction to stay, but again linked the remedy to the interests of justice in the particular case.
Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner [2005] EWHC 1453 (para 115(9)): A stay is usually inappropriate if the foreign proceeding will not bind the parties or resolve all issues in the domestic case.

These English authorities informed Quinn J’s “Principles to apply” (para 115), particularly: the “strong reasons” test for a foreign stay; the elevated standard where exclusive Irish jurisdiction exists; and the need for the foreign case to bind or resolve the Irish dispute—criteria not met here.

The Aercap judgment

Aercap Ireland Ltd v AIG Europe SA & Ors (Butcher J, 11 July 2025) (paras 93–100): While noteworthy, especially on contingent cover triggers and the All Risks vs War Risks split, Aercap is not binding on the Irish Court, may be appealed, and turned on policy wording not identically before Quinn J. The Court declined to predicate an Irish stay on a non-binding English decision (paras 95–100).

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Key principles articulated (para 115)

Quinn J synthesised a framework that will guide future stay applications:

Irish courts possess broad case-management discretion under O.63A r.5 and inherent jurisdiction.
Stays in favour of foreign proceedings are exceptional; the court balances benefits against the plaintiff’s right to an expeditious hearing (paras 115(4)–(6)).
Risk of conflicting decisions and duplicative costs matters, but is not determinative; what counts is whether the foreign outcome will bind and resolve the Irish dispute (paras 115(7)–(9)).
“Strong reasons” are required, and where an exclusive Irish jurisdiction clause exists, “exceptionally strong grounds” are needed (paras 115(10)–(11)).

Application to the facts

Exclusive Irish jurisdiction and choice-of-law: The Azex policies choose the insured’s domicile (here, Ireland) as governing law and exclusive forum (paras 23–25). The defendants previously invoked this clause to stay the Azex claims in England (paras 42–45, 83–86). Having insisted on the Irish forum, they faced a high threshold to displace it by a case-management stay (paras 115(11), 138–139).
Uncertain timing and scope of the English proceedings: The English Operator Policy trial is scheduled for October 2026, but whether the plaintiffs’ Azur claims will actually be tried then, and the issues decided, remain unsettled (paras 45–48, 122–123). Judgment and appeals could extend well beyond 2026 (paras 122–123).
No guarantee of binding or dispositive effect: The English case applies Russian law and concerns operator/reinsurance policies; the Irish case applies Irish law to lessor policies. The defendants did not concede that an English win for them would trigger payment under the Irish contingent cover or that an English loss would finally resolve Irish issues (paras 63–66, 81–82, 124). The outcome would not bind the Irish parties nor decide Irish law questions (paras 121, 141–144).
Plaintiffs’ entitlement to proceed: Plaintiffs acted reasonably by first consolidating all claims in England. Fragmentation followed from defendants’ jurisdiction challenges and contract drafting that localised jurisdiction in multiple insureds’ domiciles (paras 117–119, 128–139). Plaintiffs were entitled to commence Irish proceedings to enforce Irish-governed rights (paras 133, 136–139).
Costs and duplication: While duplication may occur, it largely results from insurers’ decisions and contract choices. The hardship to defendants does not outweigh the plaintiffs’ prejudice from an open-ended stay (paras 138–146).

Strike-out refused

Prematurity: Whether contingent cover is triggered now (i.e., whether the operator policies have “failed to respond”) is a matter of policy construction under Irish law and is unsuitable for summary disposal (paras 149–152). The Court noted the informative but non-binding Aercap analysis, yet locked the question for trial.
Direct vs contingent cover: Competing constructions of “direct” (sometimes called “possessory”) cover and the spares wording (“care, custody or control… at the premises of others… in transit”) present triable issues, not appropriate for interlocutory rejection (paras 27–36, 78–83, 152).
Late payment damages: The Court did not decide the availability of such damages under Irish law (contrast with the UK’s Insurance Act 2015), noting that Kerry Tree was not determinative in the present context (paras 71–76). This claim remains live at this stage.

3) Impact and Significance

A. Litigation strategy in aviation war/lessor insurance claims

High threshold for stays in favour of parallel foreign proceedings: Insurers should not assume that English operator policy trials will “park” Irish lessor policy cases when the policy selects Irish law and forum. The Court requires a clear showing that the foreign result will bind and resolve the Irish dispute within a foreseeable period.
Party conduct matters: Jurisdictional fragmentation caused by drafting (insured’s domicile forum) and by defendants’ own jurisdiction challenges weighed against a stay. Insurers who invoke exclusive Irish jurisdiction cannot readily recast it as a reason to delay via case-management stays.
Case sequencing across forums: Irish courts cannot “link” or manage English proceedings. Applications premised on an orderly two-forum sequencing will face scepticism unless timing, scope, binding effect, and efficiency gains are concrete and compelling.

B. Substantive insurance coverage issues preserved for Irish trial

Contingent cover triggers: Whether “failed to respond” requires exhaustion of operator policy remedies to judgment remains open under Irish law for the wording here. Aercap’s reasoning is informative but not determinative.
Direct cover scope: The interaction between “operated by the insured” language and the broader spares wording (“care, custody or control… at the premises of others… in transit”) will be fact- and wording‑sensitive and tried on evidence, including potential market practice.
War Risks vs All Risks: The Court resisted importing English conclusions on allocation of loss between these covers at the interlocutory stage. Irish determinations will depend on Irish law construction of the Azex policy suite.
Late payment damages in Ireland: The Court leaves open whether Irish law recognises a damages head for late payment of insurance claims, a topic that may invite further appellate consideration if it becomes determinative.

C. Policy drafting and market practice

Jurisdiction-by-domicile clauses (AVN67 contexts): Tying forum to the insured’s domicile creates foreseeable multi-forum litigation. Under this judgment, such clauses will be honoured and defended, not sidelined by case-management stays absent exceptionally strong reasons.
Clarity on contingent triggers: Drafters should specify whether contingent cover requires exhaustion, defined time periods for “non-response,” evidential thresholds, and the effect of operator/reinsurer declinatures. Ambiguity invites contentious and prolonged disputes.
Coordination clauses: Consider express provisions addressing coordination between lessor and operator policies, contribution/subrogation pathways, and forum interfaces, to mitigate the very uncertainties that defeated the stay.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Direct (All Risks) cover: Insurance that pays the insured directly for physical loss or damage to aircraft (or spares) under the policy’s basic insuring clause, typically where the insured has possession or operational control. Dispute here: whether direct cover applies when assets were subleased and outside Azex’s possession.
Contingent cover: Backup insurance intended to respond if the primary operator’s policy does not respond. The key dispute is the meaning of “failed to respond” or similar formulations—does it mean no payment after a reasonable time, or must the insured exhaust litigation of the operator policy to judgment?
Operator policies vs lessor policies: Operator policies cover the airline (Azur) that physically operates aircraft; lessor policies cover the lessor (Azex). AVN67 endorsements usually add lessors as additional insureds or loss payees under operator policies. The Irish case concerns lessor policies; the English case largely concerns operator/reinsurance policies.
AVN67 endorsement: A standard aviation market endorsement noting contractual parties (e.g., lessors) as additional insureds and setting out various lessor protections. Critical to standing and recovery pathways.
Case-management stay: A court order pausing a proceeding—not for lack of jurisdiction, but to manage timing/efficiency. Granted only when strong reasons show the benefits of waiting on another process clearly outweigh the plaintiff’s right to a timely determination.
Strike‑out for prematurity: A procedural disposal of claims deemed not ripe or bound to fail. Here, refused because coverage triggers and policy construction issues are genuinely triable.
Exclusive jurisdiction clause: A term selecting the forum for disputes. The Azex policies choose the insured’s domicile (Ireland), creating a strong presumption that Irish courts should hear the case absent exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion

This decision establishes a structured and demanding threshold for staying Irish insurance proceedings in favour of parallel foreign litigation where the policy contains an exclusive Irish jurisdiction clause. The High Court reinforced that:

“Strong reasons” are necessary to justify a foreign stay; where exclusive Irish jurisdiction was agreed, “exceptionally strong grounds” are required.
Uncertainty as to timing, scope, and binding effect of foreign proceedings, coupled with the plaintiff’s right to an expeditious Irish hearing, will weigh heavily against a stay.
Costs duplication and the risk of inconsistent outcomes are not, without more, decisive—especially where multiplicity is a foreseeable product of the defendants’ own drafting and jurisdictional choices.
Coverage questions on contingent triggers, the span of direct cover, and allocation between All Risks and War Risks must be tried on evidence and Irish law construction of the particular policy suite.

Practically, the ruling empowers lessors to press ahead with Irish claims under Irish-governed policies notwithstanding overlapping operator litigation abroad. For insurers, it signals that jurisdiction-by-domicile clauses will be given full effect, and that case-management stays cannot be used to warehouse Irish litigation behind English proceedings absent compelling, binding, and near‑term outcomes. The Court’s carefully articulated principles will shape future applications at the intersection of multi-forum aviation insurance disputes and Irish case-management law.