AWAS Netherlands A320-1 BV v Pacific Airlines Aviation Joint Stock Company

A settlement payment obligation is enforceable when the agreement makes the relevant sums payable under a single payment regime. A final reconciliation amount does not become payable only after the parties agree its amount unless the agreement makes agreement a condition precedent.

For summary judgment, the court asks whether the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and whether there is any other compelling reason for trial. A deficient acknowledgement of service may still satisfy the procedural requirement, and permission may be granted where appropriate.

The claimant sought summary judgment for sums due under a settlement agreement resolving earlier claims for unpaid aircraft lease liabilities. The defendant had acknowledged service but did not specify the part of the claim it intended to defend, did not provide a domestic address for service, and did not participate in the application.

The issues were whether the settlement agreement made the initial balance and final reconciliation amount payable in monthly instalments, whether the defendant’s agreement to the reconciliation was a condition precedent, and whether the claimant had established the amount due and recoverable by summary judgment.

1. Summary judgment. The requirements under CPR 24.3 were satisfied. The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there was no other compelling reason for trial. The acknowledgement of service constituted an acknowledgement for the purposes of CPR 24.4(1)(a). In any event, permission would have been granted to make the application without one.
2. Payment obligation. The Settlement Agreement defined the Instalment Balance Amount as the Initial Balance Amount plus the Final Reconciliation Amount. Clause 3.1(b) made both components payable in monthly instalments from the Instalment Commencement Date. There were no conditions precedent to the Final Reconciliation Amount becoming due and payable. Requiring agreement or verification before payment would be inconsistent with the single payment regime.
3. Reconciliation. The reference in clause 3.3 to using the same methodology as Annex A required the time-sensitive items to be updated to reflect the actual Redelivery Date. It also required the claimant’s final additional third-party expenses to be calculated from the supporting invoices, with the contractual deduction for 50% of the ferry flight cost.
4. Disposition. The Instalment Balance Amount was US$19,064,534.17, producing monthly instalments of US$794,355.59. Twelve instalments were unpaid. Judgment was entered for the claimant for US$10,053,276.09, including default interest. The order did not prejudice claims for instalments falling due between 15 November 2024 and 15 October 2025.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings issued on 22 May 2022 and discontinued on 19 December 2022 following execution of the Settlement Agreement. The present proceedings were commenced on 19 April 2024. No appellate history is stated.