FW Aviation v Vietjet: High Court signals receivers over airline's assets outside Vietnam

The Commercial Court has indicated that it will appoint post-judgement receivers over the overseas assets of Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company, while leaving assets located in Vietnam outside the order for now.

In FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company [2026] EWHC 2454 (Comm), Mr Justice Butcher described the application as a clear case, subject to evidence on the probable costs of the receivership.

Vietjet owes FW Aviation (FWA) somewhat more than US$250 million under a series of judgements arising from sub-leases of four Airbus A321 aircraft. Apart from about US$2 million paid in May 2025, the debt remains unpaid, and Vietjet does not dispute liability.

FWA has pursued enforcement in numerous jurisdictions without significant success. The Hanoi court refused recognition of the English judgement and an appeal failed, though Vietjet says it made no submissions. In Singapore, an order permitting seizure of aircraft was obtained, but the relevant aircraft are no longer flown there. Recognition proceedings continue in France and Ireland, while challenges remain pending in Australia and Malaysia.

Vietjet, a listed company with 2025 revenue of about US$3 billion, argued that it faces genuine Vietnamese currency restrictions rather than an unwillingness to pay. It said the order would be unprecedented and fruitless, that Vietnam's refusal of recognition carried great weight as a matter of comity, and that appointment would trigger termination rights held by counterparties.

The judge disagreed. Non-recognition in Vietnam, where most of Vietjet's assets appear to sit, was itself a hindrance to execution, as was the airline's resistance to enforcement elsewhere. Much of its value lies in contractual rights to future payment or delivery, including pre-delivery payments on aircraft orders, lease deposits and maintenance reserves. Vietjet's accounts to 30 June 2026 show about US$300 million of maintenance reserves receivable within 12 months. Such assets are not readily amenable to ordinary execution, and receivers could realise them more effectively.

Even if no foreign court recognised the order, it would operate in personam and could be backed by contempt proceedings. The judge also saw a reasonable prospect of recognition in France, Ireland, Australia and the BVI. Disruption to Vietjet's business carried little weight where a judgement debt was being enforced: if the airline wished to avoid it, it should pay. The termination rights argument was doubted, as such rights had already accrued through the English judgements without meaningful effect.

On Vietnam, Butcher J found no present conflict with any order of the Vietnamese courts, which had refused recognition but made no positive order. He nonetheless saw a risk that a receivership over Vietnamese assets would be perceived as interference, and adopted an incremental approach. Assets located in Vietnam will be excluded initially, though he did not rule out extension in light of experience. He considered that the exclusion strengthened the case for a broadly drawn order elsewhere.

The costs question arose after the hearing, when FWA served a witness statement from a partner at Pallas Partners, which acts for the proposed receivers from Alvarez & Marsal. Vietjet objected. Butcher J gave FWA permission to rely on it, allowed short further evidence within three days, and gave Vietjet seven days to respond. He will then decide on paper, or at a further hearing if necessary, with argument confined to costs and their effect on whether the order is just and convenient.

Tom Smith KC and Ben Woolgar, instructed by Slaughter and May, appeared for FWA. Ali Malek KC and Erin Hitchens, instructed by King & Spalding International, appeared for Vietjet.