AerCap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company & Ors v PJSC Insurance Company Universalna & Ors (Re Ukrainian Aircraft Operator Policy Claims (Jurisdiction Applications)) [2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm) (06 June 2024)

AerCap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company & Ors v PJSC Insurance Company Universalna & Ors (Re Ukrainian Aircraft Operator Policy Claims (Jurisdiction Applications)) [2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm) (06 June 2024)

The exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of the Ukrainian courts are binding and enforceable against all Claimants in respect of all claims. The Claimants, as sophisticated parties, are bound by the (re)insurance terms procured by their lessees or agents, including the EJCs. The EJCs are not invalid for failure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: AerCap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company and others; Claimant: Genesis Ireland Aviation Trading 3 Limited; Claimants (hausfeld Claimants): Serendip LDA, Wind Rose Aviation Company LLC, Overstar S. R. L.; Defendants: PJSC Insurance Company Universalna and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Jurisdiction Challenge (commercial Court) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside or Stay Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted in favour of Ukrainian courts; claims not struck out at this stage.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Forum Non Conveniens, Aircraft Insurance and Reinsurance, Ukrainian Law, Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements
Private International Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Forum Non Conveniens Aircraft Insurance and Reinsurance Ukrainian Law Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AerCap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company and others

Claimants

Genesis Ireland Aviation Trading 3 Limited

Claimant

Serendip LDA, Wind Rose Aviation Company LLC, Overstar S. R. L.

Claimants (hausfeld Claimants)

PJSC Insurance Company Universalna and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Jurisdiction Challenge (commercial Court) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside or Stay Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) in favour of Ukrainian courts binding and enforceable against the Claimants?
  2. 2 Do the EJCs apply to all claims advanced by the Claimants?
  3. 3 Are the EJCs unenforceable for failure to specify a particular Ukrainian court?

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of the Ukrainian courts are binding and enforceable against all Claimants in respect of all claims. The Claimants, as sophisticated parties, are bound by the (re)insurance terms procured by their lessees or agents, including the EJCs. The EJCs are not invalid for failure to specify a particular Ukrainian court. There are no strong reasons, including the impact of war on the Ukrainian courts, to refuse a stay. Accordingly, the English proceedings must be stayed in favour of the Ukrainian courts.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted in favour of Ukrainian courts; claims not struck out at this stage.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed as against the Defendants on the basis of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Ukrainian courts.
  • Form of relief to be determined after hearing further from counsel.