Authored by Paul Cartwright, Nomonde Sithole, Michael Homveld, Jakop Mphofu and Lesedi Dube.
In December 2025 the English High Court confirmed that where an airline admits an obligation to pay aircraft rental arrears under aircraft sub-leases and fails to raise a genuine triable issue, summary judgment may be granted without the need for a trial, even where technical arguments are raised about security assignments. The decision reinforces that summary judgment will follow where arrears are not disputed and no evidence is placed before the court that reveals issues requiring resolution at trial.
The dispute concerned two ATR 72‑600 aircrafts leased to an intermediary and then sub‑leased to the airline. The lessors had taken security assignments of the sub‑leases to protect their interests. By mid-2023 the airline had started missing payments, leading to arrears and late payment charges. Notices of termination were issued, the aircraft were redelivered, and the lessors sought to recover more than USD 1.1 million in unpaid rentals, late payment charges and enforcement costs.
After having missed various opportunities to present relevant evidence in its defence, the airline tried to introduce new evidence minutes before the hearing. The court found that the airline’s failure to comply with procedural timelines could not be excused. The court found the breach serious, unjustified and disruptive. The judgment emphasised that parties who disregard procedural orders cannot expect indulgence, particularly where late evidence does not materially advance a defence.
On the merits, the court applied the summary judgment test under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules (UK), asking whether the airline had a real prospect of defending the claim. The airline had already admitted the validity of the leases, assignments and accepted that arrears existed. Its only substantive response was a proposed set‑off against a security deposit, which the judge held did not amount to a defence with a realistic prospect of success. The court emphasised that trial is not justified “on the off‑chance that something may turn up.”
The airline also argued that the security assignments were equitable rather than absolute under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. While the court accepted that this issue was arguable in principle, it held it did not prevent summary judgment on the undisputed arrears and indemnity claims. The court made it clear that technical challenges to the form of security cannot displace liability where payment obligations have been admitted.
This judgment confirms that when arrears are admitted and no genuine triable issues are raised, summary judgment will follow. The court reinforced the principle that procedural compliance is essential and that contractual obligations cannot be avoided, particularly where there has been an admission of non‑compliance. For airlines, it serves as a reminder that indisputable arrears and procedural missteps by the debtor can result in judgment without trial. The judgment also demonstrates that summary judgment is a powerful remedy where the facts are established and no further arguable defence exists.