Summary of Judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
This judgment was delivered by Judge Mulcahy on 27 November 2025. It concerns an application for assessment of damages against Defendant Company A following judgment in default of appearance granted on 29 April 2024.
The Plaintiffs brought a claim against their insurers for the loss of nine aircraft leased to Russian airlines following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The aircraft were insured on the basis of agreed values totalling USD 441,203,612.18 under a policy covering the period 15 June 2021 to 14 June 2022. Defendant Company A's share of the coverage was 10% of the agreed values for the nine aircraft. The Plaintiffs settled with several other insurers and, after accounting for those settlements, claim that Defendant Company A remains liable for USD 18,631,601.20. The Plaintiffs also claim damages for delay in payment (alternative to interest under section 22 of the Courts Act 1981).
The application was heard on 6 November 2025. Defendant Company A had been served in accordance with an earlier order for substituted service but did not appear at the hearing.
The Plaintiffs relied on two witness statements and oral evidence from Attorney Raimondi, a senior representative involved in the transactions, and exhibited documentary evidence. The Policy provided 'all risks' and 'war risks' cover and included a schedule of agreed values confirmed by the Plaintiffs' broker, Company B, on 17 May 2021. Slips allocated percentages of the total cover among insurers; Defendant Company A executed a slip on 18 May 2021 agreeing to cover 10% of the total liability. The Plaintiffs allege total loss of each aircraft by on or about 8 March 2022 and made a claim on 18 July 2022. Proceedings were issued on 15 November 2022; Defendant Company A was joined on 27 February 2023; solicitors entered an appearance for Defendant Company A on 23 March 2023 and later came off record on 28 July 2023.
The Plaintiffs detailed a series of settlements reached with other insurers (dates, agreed values and sums received are set out in the evidence) and explained credits given to Defendant Company A for sums recovered. The Plaintiffs calculate Defendant Company A's remaining liability as USD 18,631,601.20. The Plaintiffs also provided a calculation of damages for delay based on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC), averaging 6.02% over the relevant period, yielding a delay damages figure of USD 5,878,835.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the extent of Defendant Company A's share of the overall liability?
- Should liability be calculated by reference to the agreed values set out in the Policy?
- Are damages for delay recoverable (in lieu of or in addition to statutory interest) and, if so, how should they be calculated?
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The slips demonstrate that Defendant Company A agreed to a 10% share of the total liability and the Plaintiffs have given full credit to Defendant Company A for sums received in settlement with other insurers.
- Where a policy provides cover on the basis of agreed values and there has been a total loss, the agreed values should be used to assess liability (relying on a standard text on aviation insurance and on recent authority supportive of that approach).
- The Plaintiffs seek damages for delay calculated by reference to their WACC because the statutory Courts Act interest rate (2%) is inadequate to compensate their actual loss; they describe the case as clear cut and diligently prosecuted and rely on authorities addressing interest and compensation for delay. The Plaintiffs calculate delay damages of USD 5,878,835 (WACC averaging 6.02% applied to outstanding sums from 1 September 2022 to 23 October 2025, with calculations explained in evidence).
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any arguments advanced by Defendant Company A at the assessment hearing; Defendant Company A did not appear.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Case A [2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm) |
Support for the proposition that, in principle, an insured should recover the agreed value of an aircraft in a total loss. |
The Court noted that Case A broadly supported the plaintiffs' pleaded case and the principle that agreed values are recoverable on proof of liability. |
| Case B [2025] EWHC 2529 (Comm) |
Guidance on calculation of damages and the appropriate start date for interest/damages where insurers should be given some short time to consider their position after a loss. |
The Court referred to Case B for the proposition that a short grace period may be appropriate and that pre-judgment interest/damages may be awarded; the plaintiffs adopted a start date a number of weeks after their claim in line with that approach. |
| Case C [2022] 1 IR 213; [2018] IESC 13 |
Principles underlying awards of interest under the statutory regime (section 22 Courts Act 1981) and the economic rationale for compensation for delay. |
The Court extracted and relied on the discussion in Case C about the time value of money and the statute's role in fixing a simple rate of interest, using those considerations in its analysis of damages versus statutory interest. |
| Quorum v Schramm (No. 2) |
Authority for the proposition that courts usually allow insurers some time to consider their position after a loss when fixing the start date for interest. |
The Court relied on the rationale in Quorum v Schramm (No. 2) (as cited in Case B) in determining an appropriate start date for the running of interest/damages in the present context. |
| Textbook A (Margo on Aviation Insurance, 4th ed., 2014) |
Textual statement of the legal position that an 'agreed value' policy obliges insurers to pay the agreed value in a total loss irrespective of market value. |
The Court accepted the textbook's statement as supporting the plaintiffs' submission that agreed values govern assessment in total losses under the Policy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began from the fact that judgment had been entered in default of appearance, so Defendant Company A's liability was not in issue. The Court was satisfied on the documentary evidence that Defendant Company A had agreed to provide 10% of the total cover and that the Policy provided cover on the basis of agreed values as set out in the schedule sent by the Plaintiffs' broker on 17 May 2021.
The Court accepted that Defendant Company A should receive full credit for monies the Plaintiffs received by way of settlement with other insurers. The Plaintiffs' calculations, which applied agreed values and credited all settlement proceeds, were found to establish Defendant Company A's liability in the sum of USD 18,631,601.20 for breach of contract.
On the question of delay, the Court considered the authorities discussing statutory interest and the possibility of awarding compensation reflecting actual loss rather than the simple statutory rate. The Court noted that Defendant Company A had not contested liability and had not appeared, that solicitors briefly acted and then came off record, and that without prejudice discussions had occurred but did not result in payment. The Court found that Defendant Company A's failure to provide cover deprived the Plaintiffs of funds for more than three years and that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated that their loss from delay exceeded what would be recovered under the Courts Act interest rate.
Having accepted the Plaintiffs' WACC-based method of calculating delay damages and the specific calculations provided, the Court concluded it was appropriate to award damages for delay in the amount of USD 5,878,835. The Court therefore determined the total judgment sum by adding the contractual liability and the delay damages.
Finally, the Court provisionally found that the Plaintiffs should recover reasonable costs occasioned by the claim against Defendant Company A and set a procedure for short submissions on any differing costs order within specified time limits before making a final costs ruling.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant Company A in the total sum of USD 24,510,436.20 (comprising USD 18,631,601.20 for breach of contract and USD 5,878,835 in damages for delay).
Implications:
- Direct effect: Defendant Company A is ordered to pay the stated judgment sum to the Plaintiffs; the Plaintiffs have a provisional entitlement to recover reasonable costs from Defendant Company A, subject to the prescribed submissions procedure.
- Remedial approach: The Court awarded damages for delay reflecting the Plaintiffs' demonstrated loss (WACC-based), rather than limiting recovery to the statutory Courts Act interest rate, on the facts that Defendant Company A did not contest liability and the Plaintiffs' loss from delay exceeded statutory interest.
- Precedential effect: The judgment applies established principles (as discussed in the cited authorities) to the assessment of liability and delay damages in this factual context; the opinion does not purport to establish a novel legal principle beyond its application of those authorities to the facts before the Court.