Fibula Air Travels SRL v Just-US Air SRL

A post-judgment freezing order may be continued where the evidence establishes a real risk of unjustified dissipation, including opaque financial dealings and preferential transfers to connected creditors.

The ordinary-course-of-business exception is neither subject to a presumption nor a fixed starting point. Its inclusion or removal is a fact-sensitive discretionary decision. Where the judgment remains under appeal and may be overturned, removing the exception entirely may be disproportionate. The court may instead retain and narrow it, including by prohibiting transfers to connected persons and imposing proportionate reporting requirements.

Following judgment for Just-Us Air SRL in the sum of €5,603,991, the court had previously ordered Fibula Air Travels SRL to pay the judgment sum into court pending Fibula’s renewed application for permission to appeal. After Fibula failed to make the payment and advanced disputed explanations concerning its finances and former legal advisers, the court granted a worldwide freezing order without notice.

On the return date, Just-Us sought continuation of the order and removal of the ordinary-course-of-business exception. Fibula sought discharge or variation of the order, including an increased reporting threshold. The central issues were whether there remained a real risk of unjustified dissipation and how the order should operate while the judgment was under appeal.

1. The freezing order was continued. The evidence showed serious inconsistencies in Fibula’s account of its liquidity, the alleged distress payment, and the instructions given to its former legal advisers. Fibula had also failed to provide complete disclosure after waiving privilege. These matters, together with evidence of transfers of cash and assets to Mavisu Turizm, an entity closely connected with Fibula’s owner, strongly suggested an intention to place assets beyond the reach of Just-Us. Taken cumulatively, the evidence established a strong case of continuing risk of unjustified dissipation.
2. The ordinary-course-of-business exception was not removed. Applying the guidance in Michael Wilson v John Emmott [2019] EWCA Civ 219, the inclusion or removal of the exception is a fact-specific discretionary question. It is not properly described as a presumption, starting point or remedy of last resort.
3. The reasoning in Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2011] EWCA Civ 1040 was particularly apt. Although the freezing order was justified, the underlying judgment might be overturned on appeal. It would therefore be disproportionate effectively to require Fibula to cease trading if it might ultimately have no liability to Just-Us.
4. The exception was retained but narrowed. Fibula was prohibited from transferring assets or anything of value to Ayhan Mavisu or any person or entity connected with him. Proposed payments exceeding €7,000 had to be notified to Just-Us on the day of the transaction. The requested €40,000 threshold was unsupported by evidence.

The order was continued until further order, subject to amendment of the exception in the stated terms.

• High Court (Circuit Commercial Court): Judgment was entered against Fibula on 12 December 2025 for €5,603,991: [2025] EWHC 3259 (Comm).
• High Court (Circuit Commercial Court): Permission to appeal was refused and the stay application was dismissed on 9 March 2026: [2026] EWHC 840 (Comm) and [2026] EWHC 841 (Comm).
• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds, the stay application was refused, and the unless-order application was dismissed on 5 May 2026.