The High Court’s Commercial division has ordered that one expert witness in six linked aircraft insurance cases give evidence in camera at trial, after finding a real risk of harm if the expert were identified. The order applies only to this witness. The rest of the trial is to remain public, and the trial judge will decide whether any parts of the eventual judgment need redaction.
The cases concern aircraft lessors seeking insurance cover for aircraft leased to Russian airlines. The lessors allege that the aircraft were detained in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and subsequent action by Russian authorities. They put the combined value of the aircraft at about €2.5 billion. Those claims have not been decided in this judgment.
The application was brought by the lessors in six proceedings, including this case, which were being case-managed together and listed for concurrent trial from 4 June 2024. They sought protection for an expert whose report addresses events in Russia and the response to aviation sanctions. The court heard the application in camera to avoid disclosing the expert’s identity before deciding whether protection was justified.
Justice Denis McDonald said material before the court, including a United Nations special rapporteur’s report and a letter from a former Irish ambassador to Russia, supported the expert’s concern about possible harm. The judge said the expert’s report was detailed and relevant to the lessors’ claims under certain war-risk policy provisions. He expressly made no finding about whether the report’s account of Russia reflected reality; that evidence remains for the trial judge to assess after cross-examination.
Applying the constitutional principles governing departures from public hearings, the judge concluded that the risk was a clear and pressing interest and that anonymising the expert while allowing public testimony would not be enough to prevent identification. He ordered the expert’s evidence to be heard in camera and directed that the expert’s sworn affidavit be filed under seal, with the deponent’s name withheld from the court record.
The court also ruled that the expert’s report should be anonymised and identifying material redacted during pre-trial proceedings. The parties were directed to agree detailed arrangements, including controlled access to unredacted material. The judge found a sufficient basis to restrict circulation even of the redacted report to Russia-based experts retained by defendants, while allowing defendants to seek a variation if circumstances justify it.
The ruling did not extend these protections to other witnesses. Any restrictions for another witness would require individual justification. The judge left decisions about how the expert’s evidence is addressed in the trial judgment and final order to the trial judge, and directed the parties to propose arrangements for trial stages that may refer to the evidence heard in camera.