Credit Suisse AG v Arabian Aircraft & Equipment Leasing Co EC & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1169 (02 October 2013)

Credit Suisse AG v Arabian Aircraft & Equipment Leasing Co EC & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1169 (02 October 2013)

The Bank could not pursue a claim under clause 18.4 of the lease without amending its particulars of claim to plead that basis, and in any event, could not succeed under clause 18.4 without having determined the Fair Market Value of the aircraft as contractually required. The judge erred in allowing the Bank to proceed on that basis and in requiring payment into court.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1169
Parties
Claimant/respondent: CREDIT SUISSE A. G.; Defendant/appellant: ARABIAN AIRCRAFT & EQUIPMENT LEASING CO EC; Defendant/appellant: MANSOUR IBRAHIM AL-TASSAN; Defendant/appellant: BAHRAIN EXECUTIVE AIR SERVICES CO (BEXAIR) W. L. L.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order in Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lease Agreements, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Damages Calculation, Fair Market Value, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Lease Agreements Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Damages Calculation Fair Market Value Remedies for Breach of Contract

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CREDIT SUISSE A. G.

Claimant/respondent

ARABIAN AIRCRAFT & EQUIPMENT LEASING CO EC

Defendant/appellant

MANSOUR IBRAHIM AL-TASSAN

Defendant/appellant

BAHRAIN EXECUTIVE AIR SERVICES CO (BEXAIR) W. L. L.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order in Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant could rely on clause 18.4 of the lease without amending its particulars of claim
  2. 2 Whether a claim under clause 18.4 could succeed absent a Fair Market Value determination as contractually required
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in requiring payment into court as a condition of defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank could not pursue a claim under clause 18.4 of the lease without amending its particulars of claim to plead that basis, and in any event, could not succeed under clause 18.4 without having determined the Fair Market Value of the aircraft as contractually required. The judge erred in allowing the Bank to proceed on that basis and in requiring payment into court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order below set aside
  • Application for summary judgment dismissed