High Court supports receivership over Vietjet assets to enforce $250 million judgment debt

The High Court has ruled that receivers should be appointed over non-Vietnamese assets of Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company to assist FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited in enforcing judgments worth more than US$250 million, after enforcement efforts across several jurisdictions produced little success. Mr Justice Butcher said the case was a clear one for post-judgment receivership, subject only to the court being satisfied that the likely costs of the appointment are proportionate.

The dispute arose from sub-leases of four Airbus A321 aircraft. Following three trials, Vietjet became liable for substantial sums to FWA, including approximately US$181.5 million awarded following a 2025 quantum trial, approximately US$35.1 million in default interest and costs, and a further US$18.3 million awarded in July 2026 for lost rental relating to aircraft redelivery. Other than approximately US$2 million paid in May 2025, the major judgment debts remain unpaid.

FWA has pursued enforcement in Vietnam, Australia, France, Malaysia, Singapore, Ireland, the US and other jurisdictions. Its attempt to obtain recognition in Vietnam failed at first instance and on appeal, while proceedings elsewhere have faced appeals, recognition challenges and other delays. In Singapore, FWA obtained an order permitting seizure of aircraft, but Vietjet subsequently stopped flying the relevant aircraft there.

FWA therefore sought the appointment of receivers by way of equitable execution under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The court noted that English receivership orders operate in personam rather than transferring ownership of assets, meaning they can extend to foreign property where there is a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction. A creditor need only show a reasonable prospect that receivership will assist enforcement, rather than prove in advance precisely how every asset will ultimately be realised.

Vietjet opposed the application, stressing that it is a solvent, publicly listed Vietnamese airline which reported approximately US$3 billion in 2025 revenue, approximately US$80 million in after-tax profit and approximately US$5 billion in assets. It argued that Vietnamese currency restrictions were a genuine impediment to payment, that the Vietnamese courts had refused recognition of the English judgments, and that a global receivership could disrupt its operations and contractual relationships.

Mr Justice Butcher rejected those arguments as a basis for refusing receivership. He said the starting point was that Vietjet owed unappealable English judgment debts which had remained outstanding for a considerable period, and that English law favours compliance with and enforcement of its judgments. The Vietnamese courts' refusal to recognise those judgments did not alter their validity in England.

The Court also found that receivers could potentially reach valuable categories of assets that are difficult to capture through ordinary execution. These include rights under aircraft and engine purchase agreements, pre-delivery payments, lease deposits and maintenance reserves. Vietjet's June 2026 accounts recorded approximately US$300 million in maintenance reserve receivables expected within 12 months.

Mr Justice Butcher held that there was at least a reasonable prospect that receivership would assist enforcement, including because the receivers could obtain information about future receivables, monitor them as they crystallised and take steps to collect or secure them. He also considered that a receivership order had a reasonable prospect of recognition in jurisdictions including France, Ireland, Australia and the British Virgin Islands.

The Court gave little weight to Vietjet's argument that receivership could disrupt its business. Mr Justice Butcher said that where liability has already been established and the court is dealing with execution of a judgment, disruption to the debtor's business is generally not a material consideration. He added that if Vietjet wished to avoid that disruption, it could pay the debt or put forward concrete payment arrangements, which it had not done.

The Court nevertheless adopted an incremental approach in light of the Vietnamese courts' refusal to recognise the judgments. The initial receivership will exclude assets located in Vietnam, although the court expressly left open the possibility of extending the order to Vietnamese assets later if experience shows that doing so is required in the interests of justice. Mr Justice Butcher said excluding Vietnam at this stage strengthened the justification for a broadly framed order over assets elsewhere.

A final order has not yet been made because the Court wants further evidence on the probable costs of the receivership. Alvarez & Marsal are the proposed receivers, with Pallas Partners acting for them. FWA has been permitted to rely on further evidence addressing likely costs, after which Vietjet may respond. The remaining issue is confined to whether those costs are proportionate to the size of the judgment debt.

Read the decision here.

Tom Smith KC of South Square and Ben Woolgar of Brick Court Chambers (instructed by Slaughter & May) acted for FWA.

Ali Malek KC of 3VB and Erin Hitchens of XXIV Old Buildings (instructed by King & Spalding) acted for Vietjet.