Summary
A contractual power allowing a party to render an early termination agreement null and void and revert to earlier contractual rights is construed in its full contractual context. It may restore remedies and indemnities which existed before the agreement, including losses arising from earlier defaults, unless the contract clearly limits that consequence.
Whether a Braganza duty is implied is a question of construction, business efficacy and contractual purpose. The use of the word discretion is not decisive. No such duty arose where the power merely enabled the lessor to end its forbearance and restore pre-existing rights.
A contractual estoppel created by an acceptance certificate is confined to the transaction for which it was given. It does not survive annulment of that transaction where the contract provides for reversion to the earlier agreement.
Factual background
CIT, an aircraft lessor, sought summary judgment against SpiceJet in claims arising from unpaid rent, early termination agreements and the redelivery condition for two aircraft. The parties had agreed that SpiceJet could return the aircraft under a less onerous redelivery condition, but that CIT could render the early termination agreements null and void if SpiceJet failed to comply and revert to the original leases.
SpiceJet admitted liability for certain sums but disputed whether they were payable under the early termination agreements or the leases. It also argued that CIT’s contractual power was subject to a Braganza duty and that redelivery certificates created estoppel or waiver preventing claims based on the more onerous lease redelivery condition.
The central issues were whether summary judgment should be given on the admitted sums and liability in principle for the remaining heads of loss.
Held
- Summary judgment. The court may determine a short point of law or construction summarily where the evidence is sufficient and the parties have had a fair opportunity to address it. Complexity alone is not a bar. Here, early determination would narrow the issues and promote settlement.
- Construction of clause 13.14. The clause entitled CIT, following SpiceJet’s failure to comply with the early termination agreements, to render them null and void and revert to the leases. That restored CIT’s pre-existing claims for losses flowing from the 2023 Events of Default, including losses associated with the aircraft failing to meet the Lease Redelivery Condition. The claim was not retrospective enforcement of a redelivery obligation that applied on 9 February 2024; it was a claim to resurrect an existing indemnity for loss.
- Braganza duty. Whether a contractual choice is absolute or subject to an implied duty of rationality and good faith depends on construction, taking account of the parties, the contract as a whole and the contractual context. The label discretion is not determinative. No Braganza duty was necessary here. The contractual purpose was to incentivise payment and redelivery by offering forbearance, while preserving CIT’s ability to revert to its earlier rights if SpiceJet defaulted. There was no contractual target, conflict of interest or need to balance SpiceJet’s interests against CIT’s.
- Redelivery certificates and estoppel. The certificates conclusively established compliance with the ETA Redelivery Condition for the purposes of the early termination agreements. They had no wider effect. Once clause 13.14 was exercised, the early termination agreements and the contractual estoppel connected with them ceased to have operative relevance. The certificates did not prevent CIT pursuing losses calculated by reference to the Lease Redelivery Condition.
- Promissory estoppel and waiver failed because the documents did not contain the alleged unqualified promise and SpiceJet had not shown reliance to its detriment. Summary judgment was therefore ordered for the Undisputed Sums, with contractual interest and credit for security deposits, and on liability in principle for the other heads of loss, subject to causation and quantum.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Key cases cited
21 authorities cited.
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others [2024] UKSC 28
- Sagicor Bank Jamaica Limited v Taylor-Wright [2018] UKPC 12
- Braganza v BP Shipping Limited and another [2015] UKSC 17
- British Telecommunications Plc v Telefónica O2 UK Ltd and Others [2014] UKSC 42
- Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 718
- Olympic Airlines SA v ACG Acquisition XX LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 369
- Springwell Navigation Corporation v JP Morgan Chase Bank & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1221
- ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725
- Peekay Intermark Ltd. & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [2006] EWCA Civ 386
- Primus Telecommunications Plc v MCI Worldcom International Inc. [2004] EWCA Civ 957
- Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc v Goodrich Corporation & Ors [2023] EWHC 1637 (Comm)
- Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (in administration) v Derbyshire County Council & Anor [2023] EWHC 708 (TCC)
- Timothy Piers Horlick & Ors v Diogo Jose Henriques Cavaco & Ors [2022] EWHC 2935 (KB)
- LOMBARD NORTH CENTRAL PLC EUROPEAN SKYJETS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] EWHC 728 (QB)
- Taqa Bratani Ltd & Ors v Rockrose UKCS8 LLC [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm)
- Sofer v Swissindependent Trustees SA [2019] EWHC 2071 (Ch)
- UBS AG v Rose Capital Ventures Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 3137 (Ch)
- Watson & Ors v watchfinder.co.uk Ltd [2017] EWHC 1275 (Comm)
- Aquila WSA Aviation Opportunities II Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik AS [2017] EWHC 516 (Comm)
- Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd [2016] EWHC 1472 (Comm)
- Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
Available to signed-in members.