Briefing

FW Aviation v VietJet: Post-judgment receivers appointed assist with enforcement against intangible assets

Key findings

In the recent FW Aviation v VietJet judgment, the Commercial Court held that this was a “clear case” where it was appropriate to appoint post-judgment receivers to assist with the enforcement of English judgment debts exceeding US$250 million, subject to considering further evidence on costs and proportionality. The starting point for the Court where there is an unappealable judgment is the policy of English law that such judgments should be complied with and enforced if necessary. The fact that the courts of the airline’s home country had refused to recognise the underlying judgments does not cause the English court to regard its judgments as being anything other than valid and enforceable.

Furthermore, the Court considered that there was reason to believe that receivers would be able to realise VietJet’s most valuable assets, which consist of existing and future contractual rights, more effectively than the ordinary processes of execution.

The decision sets out in detail how the court approaches an application for the appointment of post-judgment receivers where a solvent foreign debtor has the means to pay but has resisted enforcement in multiple jurisdictions. It will provide valuable guidance for parties seeking to enforce judgment debts against intangible assets which are difficult to identify and realise using ordinary execution procedures.

After the judgment was handed down, the Court resolved the outstanding issue of costs and proportionality in FWA’s favour. The order appointing the receivers came into effect on 22 October 2026. In separate decisions, the Court also made a worldwide freezing order against VietJet’s assets and ordered it to provide further financial disclosure.

The relevant background and context

We have already summarised the background to this dispute in our article on the second quantum judgment, which can be found here: FWA v VietJet (second quantum judgment): Redelivery indemnities, assignments and recoverable enforcement costs | HFW

FWA had taken steps to register and enforce its English judgments in various jurisdictions around the world, including Singapore, Ireland, Vietnam, Australia and the USA. However, it had encountered considerable difficulties in executing the judgment debt. The vast majority of the US$250 million judgment debt remains outstanding.

Against that background, FWA applied for the appointment of post-judgment receivers over VietJet’s assets to assist with enforcement of the judgment debt. VietJet resisted the application on the basis that: it is a substantial, solvent, publicly listed airline and not a “won’t pay” debtor; it faces a genuine impediment to paying the judgment debt due to Vietnamese foreign currency restrictions; the Vietnamese courts had refused to recognise the English judgments on policy grounds, which was significant as a matter of comity and more broadly; a receivership order would be unprecedented for a solvent foreign airline’s global operations; and the order sought was in any event too broad and would seriously disrupt its business and affect third parties.

The legal framework

The legal framework is well established. Under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court may appoint a receiver in any case where it is just and convenient to do so. CPR PD 69.5 provides that where a judgment creditor applies for the appointment of a receiver, the court should have regard to: (1) the amount claimed by the judgment creditor; (2) the amount likely to be recovered by the receiver; and (3) the probable costs of the receiver’s appointment.

The essential principles on which the court will act are set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Masri v Consolidated Contractors¹ and summarised by Males J in Cruz City v Unitech.²

The Court’s analysis and reasoning

The Court’s starting point where there are unappealable judgment debts is the policy of English law that such judgments should be complied with and, if necessary, enforced.

On the first limb of the test in CPR PD 69.5, ‘hindrance or difficulty’ can be practical or legal; there is no rigid test. In this case, the combination of FWA’s judgments not being recognised in Vietnam (where most of VietJet’s assets were said to be located) and the lack of significant success in other jurisdictions despite FWA’s efforts was sufficient. The Court found that it was no answer to these points for VietJet to say that it was only taking points or positions which are permissible in the local jurisdictions where FWA has taken enforcement action.

On the second limb, the Court was satisfied on the basis of the evidence that the appointment of a receiver would assist with enforcement, and that it was at least arguable that VietJet had assets that were susceptible to a receivership. In this regard the Court pointed to purchase agreements for new aircraft that VietJet had entered into with OEMs, lease deposits and maintenance reserves.

As to the other arguments that VietJet raised, the Court made the following findings:

The fact that the Vietnamese courts refused to recognise the English judgments did not render them invalid. Furthermore, the Court was not persuaded that there was any conflict between a receivership order and any order of the Vietnamese courts because (a) the Vietnamese courts had not made a positive order (i.e. an order seeking to render the English decisions unenforceable), and (b) the receivership order would act in personam and would have no proprietary effect in relation to specific assets in Vietnam or elsewhere.
Because a receivership order does not transfer ownership or create a proprietary interest in the assets concerned, there is no rule preventing the English court from appointing a receiver over foreign assets. All that is required is a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction to justify making an order, which in this case was satisfied by the fact that the order was sought with a view to enforcing English judgments and VietJet itself participated in the English proceedings.
Notwithstanding the Court’s reasoning on this point, it also recognised the potential for a receivership order covering VietJet’s assets in Vietnam to be perceived as interference with the decision-making process of the courts of VietJet’s home country. The Court considered that the best way of dealing with this was to adopt an ‘incremental approach’, which was the course adopted in Masri, and in the first instance exclude from the order assets located in Vietnam. However, the Court did not rule out including assets in Vietnam in future orders if that was in the interests of justice.
VietJet’s argument that a receivership order would cause disruption carried little weight. The Court stated that “if VietJet wishes to preserve its business from disruption, it should pay the debt.” The Court also noted that third parties would be protected by ‘Babanaft’ provisos in the order, and that the receivers could consider how to tailor any steps they take to avoid unnecessary effects on third parties.
Finally, the Court found that receivers would be well placed to identify and gather in intangible assets comprising future contractual and economic rights. Receivers could monitor these assets as they crystallise and then collect or secure them, which ordinary processes of execution cannot readily do.

As noted, the Court did not consider that it could resolve the final test of whether the costs of a receivership would be proportionate based on the available evidence, which did not include estimates for the receivers’ costs. Rather than refuse the application on this point alone, the Court decided to set a short timetable for further evidence and argument to be submitted. Having considered this further material, the Court made the receivership order on 22 October 2026.

Footnotes

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd (No.2) [2008] EWCA Civ 303; [2009] Q.B. 450. The Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution is not frozen as at 1873 but may be developed incrementally by applying established principles to new situations, including the appointment of receivers over foreign assets where there would previously have been none. The Court confirmed that such an order operates in personam only: it does not create a proprietary interest or charge over the assets, but takes effect as an injunction restraining the judgment debtor from dealing with the property to the prejudice of the judgment creditor. This reasoning has since been endorsed twice by the Privy Council, in Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu v Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Co (Cayman) Ltd and in Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd.
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd (No.2) [2014] EWHC 3131 (Comm). Males J drew together the applicable principles, including that: the jurisdiction will not be exercised absent some hindrance or difficulty, whether practical or legal, in using normal processes of execution, judged by reference to all the circumstances of the case. Such difficulties may include a debtor’s efforts to put assets beyond reach or to hold them through complex corporate structures. It is enough for the applicant to show a real prospect that the appointment will serve a useful purpose, without the court needing to resolve hypothetical questions about its ultimate effectiveness; and any appointment must be proportionate, having regard to the amount claimed, the amount likely to be recovered, and the probable costs of the appointment under CPR PD 69.5.