AerCap Ireland Ltd & Ors v Hainan Airlines Holding Co Ltd

On an application for summary judgment, the claimant must prove liability and quantum, but a pleading is sufficient if it identifies the contract, the relevant obligation, the breach and the remedy claimed so that the defendant understands the case to be met. A later-arising sum may be recovered without amendment where it falls within the pleaded contractual claim and causes no unfairness. The court may permit a minor amendment on the application where this is consistent with fairness, expedition and the overriding objective. Where judgment is entered in a foreign currency, statutory judgment interest may not apply, but the court retains a discretion to award an appropriate rate. A contractual default rate is not automatically suitable as a post-judgment rate.

The claimants sought summary judgment for unpaid rent, engine maintenance rent and contractual interest under six commercial aircraft leases. The defendant admitted entering the leases and did not dispute its failure to perform its payment obligations, but required proof of the pleaded claims and quantum. It argued principally that some later-arising rent and interest had not been pleaded and could not be recovered on a summary judgment application. The claimants also sought post-judgment interest at 6.25% on the foreign-currency judgment debt.

The central issues were whether the pleadings sufficiently identified the claims for later-arising sums, whether summary judgment should be entered on the evidence, and what rate of post-judgment interest should be ordered.

1. Summary judgment. The application succeeded. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 24.2, the question was whether the defendant had no real prospect of success and whether there was any other compelling reason for trial. Swain v Hillman established that a realistic prospect is more than fanciful and carries some degree of conviction. The defendant advanced no positive defence and the claimants proved the leases, the payment obligations, the defaults and the amounts claimed.
2. Burden of proof and pleadings. The claimants retained the burden of proving liability and quantum. CPR 16.5(4) required allegations concerning a money claim to be proved unless expressly admitted. The pleadings sufficiently identified the relevant contracts, rent obligations, breaches and remedies. The defendant could not credibly have been uncertain about the case it had to meet.
3. Later-arising sums. The court distinguished the materially different circumstances in Perestrello v United Paint Co and Credit Suisse AG v Arabian Aircraft & Equipment Leasing Co. Those cases concerned a different or mutually inconsistent basis of claim, pursued at a late stage in contentious proceedings. Here, the later rent and interest were further sums arising under the pleaded leases. Judgment was therefore entered for sums due by the hearing. A sum falling due on the hearing date could not be adjudged unpaid where payment remained conceptually possible, although a declaration could be made if required.
4. Interest. Contractual interest was awarded in the amounts proved, with the claimants limiting their applications to simple interest where appropriate. Because the judgment debt was in a foreign currency, Judgments Act interest did not automatically apply. The court rejected the blanket contractual rate of 6.25% and ordered post-judgment interest at 2% above US Prime.