AerCap Ireland Limited v AIG Europe SA & Ors

A court-ordered third-party disclosure is obedience to a court order, not the provision of financial, brokering, insurance or reinsurance services for sanctions purposes. The requirements for third-party disclosure under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 CPR PD57AD para 31.17 are met where the documents are likely to support the applicant’s case or adversely affect another party’s case, and disclosure is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings or to save costs. The same conclusion may apply to voluntary production of insurance documents to a non-Russian lessor where the relevant arrangement is the lessor’s insurance claim, rather than an arrangement directed to supplying restricted goods or technology to Russia.

AerCap sought third-party disclosure from brokers involved in placing operator reinsurance policies for Russian airline insurers. The documents comprised insurance and reinsurance contracts, together with notices purporting to amend or cancel cover after 24 February 2022.

The application was made under CPR PD57AD para 31.17. The Second to Fourth Respondents did not oppose the application. McGill opposed it principally on the basis that disclosure might contravene the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and also raised confidentiality and alternative-source points. The issues were whether the disclosure requirements were satisfied, whether disclosure would breach the Regulations, and what collateral use should be permitted.

1. Application granted. The documents sought were likely to support AerCap’s case or adversely affect the insurers’ case. Disclosure was necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings under CPR PD57AD para 31.17(3). AerCap would not seek documents already obtained from other sources.
2. Disclosure pursuant to a third-party disclosure order is not the provision of a service. It is obedience to an order of the court made for the fair disposal of proceedings. Accordingly, compliance with the order would not constitute the provision of financial services under regulations 28(1) or 28(3), brokering services under regulation 29(1), or insurance or reinsurance services under regulation 29A of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
3. As an additional, broader conclusion, voluntary production of the documents by a broker to a non-Russian lessor would not contravene the Regulations. The relevant arrangement would be the lessor’s claim under the insurance, or possibly the insurance itself. The connection with the earlier aircraft lease was too tenuous, particularly since the lease pre-dated the sanctions and had been terminated. The Regulations were not aimed at preventing a non-Russian party from seeking compensation or an indemnity for non-performance or termination of such a lease.
4. The broker’s role as a reinsurance broker did not materially alter the analysis. Any service involved would not be provided to a person connected with Russia for the purposes of regulation 29A, and the insurance or reinsurance did not facilitate use of the aircraft or engines in Russia.
5. The permitted use of disclosed documents was confined to the present proceedings and already commenced operator-policy claims in the same court. The documents were to be treated as Operator Policy Documents under the order made on 14 December 2023, including its paragraph 7 protections.