FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited v Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company

The power to appoint post-judgment receivers is exercised where it is just and convenient. Under the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (PD 69.5), the court considers the judgment debt, likely recovery and probable costs, together with all relevant circumstances.

A receivership may extend to foreign assets and future contractual rights. It operates in personam; foreign non-recognition does not by itself prevent relief where there is a sufficient English connection. The creditor must show hindrance or difficulty in ordinary execution and a reasonable prospect of useful enforcement. Business disruption carries little weight, although proportionality, comity and third-party protection remain important. Here appointment was appropriate in principle, but the final order was deferred for evidence on probable costs and initially excluded assets in Vietnam.

FWA sought the appointment of post-judgment receivers over Vietjet’s assets to enforce judgment debts exceeding US$250 million arising from aircraft sub-lease litigation. Except for approximately US$2 million, Vietjet had not paid. Enforcement attempts in Vietnam and other jurisdictions had not produced substantial recovery. Vietjet relied on Vietnamese currency restrictions and non-recognition, comity, possible business disruption, third-party effects, fruitlessness and probable costs.

The application required the court to decide whether receivership was just and convenient, whether ordinary execution had been hindered, whether receivers could usefully realise foreign and future contractual assets, and what territorial and procedural limits were appropriate.

1. Disposition. Subject to the probable costs of the receivership and the final terms of the order, the court held that appointment was appropriate. The initial order was to be restricted to assets not located in Vietnam. The final decision was deferred pending short further evidence on costs.
2. Governing principles. Under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR PD 69.5, the court considered the amount claimed, likely recovery, probable costs and the wider demands of justice. The court applied the principles summarised in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited [2014] EWHC 3131 (Comm) and Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 296 (Comm).
3. A judgment creditor must show some hindrance or difficulty in using ordinary execution processes, but no rigid category of special circumstances is required. A real prospect that receivers will serve a useful enforcement purpose is sufficient. The court need not resolve hypothetical questions of effectiveness or disputed foreign law, and will not act in vain where no reachable property exists.
4. Receivership operates in personam and does not transfer proprietary ownership. Foreign assets are not excluded merely because the order may not be recognised abroad. Enforcement of an English judgment, particularly where the debtor submitted to the jurisdiction, may provide a sufficient connection, subject to comity and any real risk of foreign criminal liability.
5. The refusal of recognition in Vietnam did not invalidate the English judgments or prevent relief. Non-recognition in Vietnam, resistance to enforcement elsewhere and the presence of future contractual rights constituted execution difficulties. Engines, aircraft purchase rights, pre-delivery payments, lease deposits and maintenance reserves presented a reasonable prospect of useful receivership enforcement.
6. The effect on Vietjet’s business carried little weight because this was execution of established judgment debts. Third-party prejudice remained relevant and could be addressed through protective Babanaft and Baltic provisos. The broad terms proposed were justified by the initial exclusion of Vietnam-located assets.
7. Because the probable costs had not been adequately evidenced, FWA was permitted to rely on Ms Harrison’s statement and serve very short further evidence within three days. Vietjet was allowed seven days thereafter to respond. The remaining issue would be determined on paper or at a further hearing, confined to probable costs and their effect on justice and convenience.

First-instance application. The judgment records earlier liability and quantum judgments between the parties, followed by appellate and enforcement steps, but no appeal from this receivership decision is stated.