Shilmore Enterprises Corp & Anor v Phoenix 1 Aviation Ltd [2008] EWHC 169 (QB) (31 January 2008)

Shilmore Enterprises Corp & Anor v Phoenix 1 Aviation Ltd [2008] EWHC 169 (QB) (31 January 2008)

The claimants are entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft because the defendant's option to purchase was exercised and failed, there is no subsisting option, and the balance of convenience and risk of injustice favour the claimants. The defendant's losses are compensable in damages, and relief from forfeiture is not available on the facts.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 169
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
Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction / Hearing of Claimants' Application for Custody and Possession of Aircraft Pending Trial
Outcome
Mandatory injunction granted in favour of claimants; claimants to have custody and possession of the aircraft, subject to increased security.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Relief From Forfeiture, Aircraft Leasing and Sale, Breach of Contract
Commercial Law Contract Law Injunctions Interlocutory Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Relief From Forfeiture Aircraft Leasing and Sale 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shilmore Enterprises Corporation

Claimant

New World Enterprises Corporation

Claimant

Phoenix 1 Aviation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction / Hearing of Claimants' Application for Custody and Possession of Aircraft Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to mandatory injunction for custody and possession of aircraft
  2. 2 Whether defendant has a subsisting option to purchase the aircraft
  3. 3 Whether relief from forfeiture is available to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft because the defendant's option to purchase was exercised and failed, there is no subsisting option, and the balance of convenience and risk of injustice favour the claimants. The defendant's losses are compensable in damages, and relief from forfeiture is not available on the facts.

Court Disposition

Mandatory injunction granted in favour of claimants; claimants to have custody and possession of the aircraft, subject to increased security.

Orders

  • Claimants to have custody and possession of the aircraft.
  • Claimants to increase security paid into court from US$100,000 to US$350,000.