The Judicial Response to Cross-Border Aircraft Leasing Disputes

Abstract

Cross-border aircraft leasing disputes often raised complex legal issues when airline lessees failed to satisfy their rental payment obligations under operating lease agreements. This article examined how courts responded to such disputes through a comparative analysis of two decisions under the English Commercial Court: FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company [2025] and Helice Leasing SAS v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2021]. Here, the FWA case concerned contempt of court, specifically whether a party could be held liable for acting contrary to the purpose of a court injunction without technically breaching its express terms. By contrast, the Helice case focused on the procedural jurisdiction issues, specifically whether an English court or an LCIA arbitral tribunal had the authority to resolve the dispute in light of a conflicting dispute resolution clause. Through normative legal research and a comparative approach, this article demonstrates that although both cases reaffirm the principle of party autonomy under the Cape Town Convention 2001 and the English courts' consistent role as a neutral forum for international aviation disputes, their judicial outcomes diverged significantly. Therefore, this article highlights the importance of precise court orders and carefully drafted dispute resolution clauses in cross-border aircraft leasing transactions.