Aircraft Engineers LTD against Leading Edge Flight Training LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCHAM 91 (08 December 2025)

Aircraft Engineers LTD against Leading Edge Flight Training LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCHAM 91 (08 December 2025)

The pursuer failed to prove that further sums were due for engineering and maintenance work after the defender's payment of £30,000, and was not in breach of contract regarding delivery of aircraft records. The contract for sale of the flight centre failed due to lack of required consents, entitling the defender to return of the deposit less sums due for parking/storage. The parking/storage charge claimed by the pursuer was grossly excessive and reduced to the market rate. The pursuer was not entitled to collection costs or further documentation delivery.

Citation
[2025] SCHAM 91
Parties
Pursuer: Aircraft Engineers Limited; Defender: Leading Edge Flight Training Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Decree for payment by pursuer to defender of £15,200.66; defender assoilzied (absolved) of other claims; pursuer entitled to payment of £4,799.34 for parking/storage; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contract Formation and Breach, Sale of Business, Deposit Refund, Aircraft Maintenance Records, Parking/storage Charges, Interpretation of EU Aviation Regulations
Contract Law Commercial Law Aviation Law Contract Formation and Breach Sale of Business Deposit Refund Aircraft Maintenance Records Parking/storage Charges +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aircraft Engineers Limited

Pursuer

Leading Edge Flight Training Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Action / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer was entitled to payment for engineering and maintenance services under contract
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was in breach of contract regarding delivery of aircraft maintenance records
  3. 3 Whether the defender was entitled to a refund of deposit for failed business sale

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that further sums were due for engineering and maintenance work after the defender's payment of £30,000, and was not in breach of contract regarding delivery of aircraft records. The contract for sale of the flight centre failed due to lack of required consents, entitling the defender to return of the deposit less sums due for parking/storage. The parking/storage charge claimed by the pursuer was grossly excessive and reduced to the market rate. The pursuer was not entitled to collection costs or further documentation delivery.

Court Disposition

Decree for payment by pursuer to defender of £15,200.66; defender assoilzied (absolved) of other claims; pursuer entitled to payment of £4,799.34 for parking/storage; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Pursuer to pay defender £15,200.66 sterling.
  • Defender assoilzied of pursuer's claims for engineering/maintenance and rent/landing fees.