Anonymized Summary of Judgment — Commercial List

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment, delivered by Judge Quinn, concerns claims brought by two aircraft-leasing companies (the "Plaintiffs") against a large group of insurers (the "Defendants") for indemnity, damages and interest arising from the loss of aircraft and engines. The Plaintiffs say the losses occurred following the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and subsequent actions by the government of Russia and sanctions imposed by various states and international organisations.

The Plaintiffs are lessors of aircraft and engines. Plaintiff One owns two aircraft and four engines; Plaintiff Two owns seven engines. The Plaintiffs leased those items to two lessee companies (referred to here as Company B and Company C). The lessee companies subleased the equipment to an operator company (Company D), which was operating the equipment in the country where the operator was domiciled at the time the invasion occurred.

After 24 February 2022 the Plaintiffs demanded the return of the equipment and, beginning on 1 March 2022 and 2 March 2022, issued notices of default and cancellation under the leases and called for immediate surrender and return. The Plaintiffs allege the lessees and the operator failed to return the equipment, that the operator purported to re-register and continue to operate the equipment in its jurisdiction, and that there is no reasonable prospect of recovery; accordingly the Plaintiffs assert total loss.

The leases required the lessees and sub-lessees to insure the equipment. The equipment was insured at multiple levels: (i) insurance placed by the lessee companies with the Defendants (All Risks and War & Allied Risks); and (ii) operator-level insurance placed by the operator (Company D) with a local insurer (Company E) and reinsurance in the London/international markets. The policy documents recorded the combined insured value of the equipment at USD 89,681,780.07.

Key contractual features include a choice-of-law and exclusive-jurisdiction clause in favour of the insured's country of domicile. The lessee companies are domiciled in the State; consequently the Azex (lessee) policies are governed by the law of the State and (for present purposes) jurisdiction is for the courts of the State. The Plaintiffs rely on endorsements (AVN67 type) in the policies that identify finance/contracting parties (the Plaintiffs) as additional insureds.

Procedurally, the Plaintiffs and another group entity commenced proceedings in the High Court of England & Wales on 24 March 2023 asserting claims under both the lessee-level policies and the operator-level/reinsurance policies. Those English proceedings were challenged on jurisdictional grounds; as a result of those challenges the English court stayed certain claims and (by judgment of 28 March 2024) retained jurisdiction over a class of operator-policy claims. A trial of those English operator-policy proceedings has been case-managed and a multi-week trial window was listed for October 2026, subject to further case management directions.

The Plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings in the Commercial List in this Court on 18 July 2024. These Irish proceedings are confined to claims under the lessee-level (Azex) policies. The Defendants in this Irish action applied for a case-management stay of the Irish proceedings pending determination of the English proceedings and, in the alternative (in respect of a subset), sought an order striking out the Irish proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and/or being premature. The applications were heard by Judge Quinn, who delivered the judgment refusing the relief sought by the Defendants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should exercise its case-management powers (Order 63A r.5 or the inherent jurisdiction) to stay the Irish proceedings pending determination of related proceedings in the High Court of England & Wales.
2. Whether parts or all of the Plaintiffs' claims should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being bound to fail, having no reasonable prospect of success, or being premature (Order 19 r.28.1).
3. How key policy clauses should be construed, in particular whether the policies' "direct" (possessory) cover extends to equipment subleased to and operated by third-party operators, or instead applies only to equipment in the possession/custody of the named insured.
4. Whether "contingent" cover under the lessor (lessee-level) policies requires that the operator-level policies have been pursued to judgment or otherwise exhausted before contingent cover can be said to apply ("failed to respond").
5. Whether a claim for damages for late payment (or analogous relief) is recognised under the law applicable to the Plaintiffs' lessee-level policies.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The facts and documentary issues in the English proceedings overlap substantially with those in the Irish proceedings; many matters will be resolved in England and it is therefore efficient and just to stay the Irish proceedings pending the English outcome.
• The policy language for "direct" cover applies only to equipment that remains in the possession or is operated by the named insured (the lessee companies), and so direct cover does not apply to equipment subleased to the operator (Company D).
• Contingent cover applies only if the operator's policies "failed to respond"; this requires the insured to pursue operator-level claims and exhaust available remedies (potentially to judgment). That is an issue to be determined in the English proceedings.
• The Irish claims seek the same indemnities as the English claims; the Plaintiffs cannot recover twice. Any remaining niche claim (for damages for late payment) is either not materially different from the English claim for compound interest or is not a recognised head of damages under Irish law.
• If stayed, unnecessary duplication and waste of court and party resources would be avoided. The Defendants do not contest the jurisdiction of the Irish court but seek a case-management stay to avoid parallel litigation where the English proceedings are more advanced.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs accept that many facts overlap but insist that their lessee-policy claims are governed by the law of the State and that they are entitled to prosecute those claims in this jurisdiction.
• The Plaintiffs rely on the AVN67-type endorsements that make them contracting parties/ additional insureds, and they assert entitlement to direct (possessory) cover under the plain language of the lessee-level policy documents. They submit the Direct Cover wording should be read to cover loss while equipment is in the care, custody or control of others and in transit.
• The Plaintiffs contend that they served demands under the operator policies in early 2022 and have not received indemnity, so the operator policies have, for present purposes, "failed to respond" and contingent coverage accordingly arises.
• The Plaintiffs say they were entitled to commence proceedings in England and did so in good faith; after the Defendants invoked choice-of-law and jurisdiction clauses, the Plaintiffs consented to a stay of the lessee-level claims in England and then commenced these Irish proceedings as required by the choice-of-law clauses.
• The Plaintiffs submit that they have legitimate and distinct heads of relief in Ireland (including statutory interest and a claim described as "damages for delay") which would survive an English judgment and justify refusal of the stay.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court framed the question as a discretionary exercise of case-management power under Order 63A r.5 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction: whether, weighing advantages and disadvantages, it was just and proportionate to stay the Irish proceedings pending the English proceedings. The Court set out principles drawn from Irish and English authorities (see table above) and distilled several guiding propositions:

1. The general starting point is that a plaintiff is entitled to have its claim heard and determined in an expeditious manner in the forum chosen unless strong reasons justify a procedural restriction.
2. The Court has broad case-management powers to avoid duplication of litigation and inconsistent decisions and to conserve resources, but those powers operate differently where the related proceedings are in a foreign forum outside the Court's control.
3. A stay of domestic proceedings pending foreign proceedings is an exceptional measure requiring strong reasons: the proposed stay must produce clear benefits that outweigh prejudice and delay to the plaintiff.
4. A stay is less likely to be appropriate where the foreign proceedings will not finally resolve all the issues in the domestic proceedings, or will not bind the parties on questions governed by domestic law.

Applying those principles to the facts, the Court analysed several discrete considerations.

First, there is a substantial factual and documentary overlap between the English and Irish proceedings because they arise from the same sequence of events in early 2022. The Court accepted that findings in the English proceedings might shorten or inform an Irish trial but did not accept that overlap alone justified a stay because different governing laws apply to different policy layers (lessee-level policies governed by the law of the State; operator policies governed by the law of the operator's domicile). Thus, even identical factual findings may have different legal consequences.

Second, the Court examined timing and the state of the English proceedings. A multi-party case-management process is underway in England with a trial window listed for October 2026. The Court emphasised the uncertainty inherent in that timetable: it is not clear whether the English trial will finally determine the Plaintiffs' operator-policy claims relevant to the same equipment, whether the English court will try all or only sample/common issues, or whether the English decision will be appealed. These uncertainties meant the English proceedings could not be relied upon to deliver a timely or definitive resolution of the issues now before this Court.

Third, the Court considered the specific legal questions the Defendants said should be determined in England before Ireland — chiefly, (a) whether "contingent" cover is activated only after operator-level policies have been pursued to judgment, and (b) whether "direct" cover applies where equipment has been subleased. The Court held these are matters of contractual construction under the lessee-level policies to be decided under domestic law; they require detailed consideration of policy texts, documentary context and potentially market practice and evidence. These issues are not suitable for resolution on the present interlocutory application and are not conclusively dependent on the English court's determinations of operator-policy issues under foreign law.

Fourth, the Court analysed the parties' conduct. The Plaintiffs initially pursued all claims in England. When the Defendants invoked choice-of-law/jurisdiction clauses, the Plaintiffs consented to the stay of certain Azex claims in England and then commenced these Irish proceedings. The Court observed that the Defendants' contractual decisions to accept multiple insureds domiciled in different jurisdictions, and their decision to challenge English jurisdiction rather than defend in that single forum, contributed to the multi-jurisdictional situation. The Court treated that fact as relevant to the fairness calculus.

Fifth, the Court reviewed the Aercap judgment (Precedent I). Although that judgment contains detailed findings on contingent cover and the allocation between War Risks and All Risks in the cases there, the Court declined to treat it as determinative here because the policy wordings, endorsements and factual matrices differ across the several classes of policies. The Court was unwilling to decide the present application by anticipating that Precedent I's outcomes would be followed or upheld on appeal.

Sixth, in relation to the Defendants' strike-out/prematurity argument, the Court held that the question whether the contingent cover has become payable is primarily a matter of contract construction and cannot be conclusively resolved on the affidavits and documents before the Court on an interlocutory application. The Court was therefore not satisfied that the Plaintiffs' claims were bound to fail or were premature so as to justify striking out the proceedings.

Synthesising these points, the Court concluded that:

• The balance of prejudice favoured the Plaintiffs: a stay would impose an indefinite and possibly substantial delay on the Plaintiffs in circumstances where the English proceedings may not finally resolve all issues and where the Court has no control over their timing;
• Because many contested issues require thorough examination of documents, context and evidence under domestic law, it would be inappropriate to deprive the Plaintiffs of their entitlement to proceed in the State by an interlocutory stay;
• The strike-out application was premature because the plaintiffs' claims raised bona fide arguments of construction and were not shown to be hopeless on the materials provided.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court REFUSED the applications for a stay of these proceedings and REFUSED/DISMISSED the alternative applications to strike out the proceedings.

Immediate implications:

• The Plaintiffs are permitted to continue prosecuting their lessee-policy claims in this Court. The Defendants must defend those claims in Ireland unless they obtain relief by other means.
• The Defendants' request for a case-management stay pending the outcome of the English operator-policy proceedings was denied; no procedural stay will be imposed on the Irish actions in the terms sought.
• The strike-out applications were refused; the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs' claims are not shown to be bound to fail or plainly premature on the interlocutory record.

Broader implications:

The decision does not purport to lay down new doctrinal rules of general application. It applies established principles of case management and stays to the specific circumstances of parallel multi-jurisdictional insurance litigation. The Court emphasised (a) the primacy of the plaintiff's entitlement to a timely trial in the chosen forum, (b) the need for strong reasons before staying domestic proceedings in favor of foreign proceedings, and (c) the limits of interlocutory dispositive relief where underlying issues raise genuine disputes of contractual construction and context. The Court also highlighted the practical consequence that contractual choices by insurers to confer jurisdiction in the domiciles of insureds can produce multi-jurisdictional litigation which the insurers themselves must, in part, accept.

Note on anonymization: Consistent placeholders have been used for corporate and personal names and for cited cases to remove identifying particulars while faithfully summarising the reasoning and outcomes recorded in the judgment.