Shilmore Enterprises Corp & Anor v Phoenix 1 Aviation Ltd

Shilmore Enterprises Corp & Anor v Phoenix 1 Aviation Ltd

The claimants are entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft because the defendant exercised and failed to complete its single option to purchase under the Heads of Terms, the SPA was terminated by the defendant's breach, and there is no subsisting option. The least risk of injustice lies in granting the order sought, with appropriate financial security for the defendant's potential claims.

Parties
Claimant: Shilmore Enterprises Corporation; Claimant: New World Enterprises Corporation; Defendant: Phoenix 1 Aviation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction
Outcome
Mandatory injunction granted in favour of the claimants
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Relief From Forfeiture, Sale of Goods, Aircraft Leasing
Contract Law Commercial Law Interlocutory Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Relief From Forfeiture Sale of Goods Aircraft Leasing

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shilmore Enterprises Corporation

Claimant

New World Enterprises Corporation

Claimant

Phoenix 1 Aviation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a subsisting option to purchase the aircraft under the Heads of Terms
  3. 3 Whether relief from forfeiture should be granted to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft because the defendant exercised and failed to complete its single option to purchase under the Heads of Terms, the SPA was terminated by the defendant's breach, and there is no subsisting option. The least risk of injustice lies in granting the order sought, with appropriate financial security for the defendant's potential claims.

Court Disposition

Mandatory injunction granted in favour of the claimants

Orders

  • The claimants are granted custody and possession of the aircraft.
  • The claimants must increase the security paid into court from US$100,000 to US$350,000 as a condition of the order.