Receivership remains subject to the court being satisfied about its probable costs.
The High Court has found that a receivership order over assets of Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company is appropriate, subject to the court being satisfied that the probable costs are proportionate. The order will initially exclude assets located in Vietnam.
Mr Justice Butcher ruled on 30 September 2026 after FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited applied for post-judgment receivers to assist with enforcement of sums owed by Vietjet. The judgment debt was stated to be more than US$250 million, of which Vietjet had paid only about US$2 million since May 2025.
The underlying dispute concerned sub-lease agreements for four Airbus A321 aircraft. Earlier proceedings resulted in judgments substantially in FWA’s favour. An order following the second trial required Vietjet to pay approximately US$181.5 million, while a later judgment in July 2026 ordered a further US$18.3 million in respect of lost rental relating to NEO aircraft.
FWA had attempted to enforce the judgments in several jurisdictions, including Vietnam, Australia, France, Malaysia, Singapore, Ireland and Washington State in the US. The judgment records that these efforts had not produced significant enforcement, while the Vietnamese courts had refused recognition of the relevant English judgment.
The court considered the legal principles governing receivers appointed to assist with judgment enforcement. Under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court may appoint a receiver where it is just and convenient to do so. CPR PD 69.5 requires the court to consider, among other matters, the judgment debt, the amount likely to be recovered by a receiver and the probable costs of the appointment.
Mr Justice Butcher concluded that FWA had encountered significant difficulties using ordinary enforcement procedures. He also found a reasonable prospect that receivers could assist because Vietjet held contractual rights capable of producing future payments or deliveries, including aircraft purchase rights, pre-delivery payments, lease deposits and maintenance reserves.
The judge noted that Vietjet’s accounts showed approximately US$300 million in maintenance reserves receivable within 12 months, although he did not finally determine whether all of those sums constituted assets available to receivers.
The court nevertheless adopted an incremental approach because of the position of the Vietnamese courts. The initial receivership order will therefore exclude assets located in Vietnam, although the judge expressly did not rule out a future extension to such assets.
The remaining issue is the proportionality of the probable receivership costs. FWA has been given permission to provide further evidence on costs, with Vietjet given seven days thereafter to respond. The court will then decide whether the order should be made on paper or following a further hearing.