Judgment: 2025-04-28 · Court archive

CDB ordered to pay insurers’ legal costs after dropping Russian aircraft claim on day 93 of trial

High Court (Commercial) · [2025] IEHC 243

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

CDB ordered to pay insurers’ legal costs after dropping Russian aircraft claim on day 93 of trial

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Russia
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

CDB pursued insurance claims as part of six aviation cases tried concurrently in the Commercial Court. Its primary case was against insurers providing war-risk cover. It also pursued an alternative claim against all-risks insurers if the losses were found not to arise from excluded war risks.

The High Court has ordered CDB Aviation entities to pay the legal costs of 12 insurers after abandoning an alternative claim against them on day 93 of litigation over aircraft left in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.

CDB had 15 aircraft leased to Russian airlines when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Six were subsequently recovered outside Russia, leaving nine aircraft which, CDB said, had not been returned despite demands following EU sanctions.

CDB pursued insurance claims as part of six aviation cases tried concurrently in the Commercial Court. Its primary case was against insurers providing war-risk cover. It also pursued an alternative claim against all-risks insurers if the losses were found not to arise from excluded war risks.

By March 2025, after 92 trial days and completion of the evidence, settlements had resolved the other claims. CDB then notified the remaining all-risks insurers that it would no longer pursue its case against them. Those insurers represented 28% of CDB’s all-risks cover.

The resulting judgment concerned costs only, not whether CDB's insurance claim was substantively valid.

Ms Justice Eileen Roberts held that Irish law's normal rule applied: a party which abandons proceedings is generally liable for the reasonable costs incurred by the successful opposing parties.

CDB argued that insurers' pre-litigation conduct, an alleged failure to operate a 50/50 settlement provision, unnecessary issues maintained during trial and the unusual shared structure of the aviation litigation justified either no costs order or a cap.

The court rejected those arguments. It also declined CDB's proposed formula limiting liability by reference to a fraction of the overall aviation litigation costs.

However, Roberts J stressed that the insurers may recover only costs properly attributable to defending the CDB proceedings and cannot obtain a windfall from costs shared with other cases or parties. The precise amount will be determined by agreement or, failing that, by a Legal Costs Adjudicator.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review