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 court held that the claimants were entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft because the defendant had exercised and failed to complete its single option to purchase under the Heads of Terms and Sale and Purchase Agreement, and had no further entitlement. The risk of injustice was lower if the order was granted, as the defendant's losses would be compensable in damages, whereas refusal would unjustly deprive the claimants of use of their asset. Relief from forfeiture was not available to the defendant in these circumstances.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 169 (QB)
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
Outcome
Mandatory injunction granted in favour of claimants
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Relief From Forfeiture, Option to Purchase, Breach of Contract, Aircraft Leasing
Commercial Law Contract Law Injunctions Interlocutory Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Relief From Forfeiture Option to Purchase Breach of Contract +1 more

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 9
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

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants were entitled to a mandatory injunction for custody and possession of the aircraft because the defendant had exercised and failed to complete its single option to purchase under the Heads of Terms and Sale and Purchase Agreement, and had no further entitlement. The risk of injustice was lower if the order was granted, as the defendant's losses would be compensable in damages, whereas refusal would unjustly deprive the claimants of use of their asset. Relief from forfeiture was not available to the defendant in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Mandatory injunction granted in favour of claimants

Orders

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