The High Court has refused insurers’ applications to pause Irish claims over two aircraft and 11 engines said to have been lost in Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. It also rejected an alternative application to strike out the claims as premature, leaving the case to proceed; the court did not decide whether the insurers must pay under the policies.
The plaintiffs, WWTAI Aropco II DAC and WWTAI Aropco 1 Bermuda Limited, are aircraft leasing companies in the FTAI group. They claim indemnity, damages and interest under insurance policies arranged by two Irish companies that leased the equipment to Russian airline Azur Air. The plaintiffs say the equipment has not been returned despite default and cancellation notices issued in March 2022, and that Azur continues to hold and operate it in Russia. Those matters remain disputed.
The insurers sought a stay until related claims under Azur’s operator policies and reinsurance were resolved in English proceedings, where a trial was listed for October 2026. They argued that the cases overlap in equipment, events and losses, and that the English outcome could narrow or resolve the Irish claims. Nineteen insurers also sought to strike out the claims, arguing in particular that the contingent cover claims were premature while the operator-policy claims remained unresolved. The plaintiffs argued that they had not received payment under those policies and were entitled to pursue the Irish claims.
Justice Michael Quinn said the English proceedings might inform or narrow issues, but it was uncertain whether the relevant Azur claims would be heard at the listed trial or when a final judgment might follow. The English case, governed by Russian law, would not necessarily bind the parties or resolve all issues under the Azex policies, which are subject to Irish law and jurisdiction. The defendants had not conceded that the contingent cover would respond if the plaintiffs lost their operator-policy claims.
The judge concluded that a stay would leave the plaintiffs waiting an indeterminate time for an outcome that might not settle the Irish claims. He said the insurers’ decision to rely on policy jurisdiction clauses and challenge the English court’s jurisdiction had resulted in related litigation proceeding in separate countries. The potential duplication of costs did not outweigh the prejudice to the plaintiffs from delaying their case.
On strike out, the judge said the meaning and application of the policy terms required examination of the documents and evidence at trial, potentially including evidence of market practice. He was not persuaded that any part of the claims was bound to fail or had no reasonable chance of success. The applications were dismissed. The ruling addresses only the interlocutory applications, not the plaintiffs’ entitlement to insurance cover or damages.