High Court rules seller not liable after $825k fraud derails aircraft engine deal.
A High Court has struck out a claim brought by an aircraft parts buyer who lost approximately $825,000 to a fraudster in a hijacked email exchange, ruling that the seller was not liable as the scammer had no “apparent authority” to act on its behalf.
The dispute in Logix Aero Ireland Limited v Siam Aero Repair Company Limited [2025] EWHC 1283 (KB) centred on a botched deal for two aircraft engines. In July 2024, Logix and Siam agreed a Letter of Intent, intending to finalise terms in a formal Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA).
Negotiations largely took place via email. Unbeknown to both parties, a third-party fraudster intercepted the correspondence. As each side believed they were still communicating directly, the fraudster altered the countersigned SPA and invoices to include his own bank details.
Logix, convinced the payment instructions were genuine, transferred around $825,000 to the fraudster’s account. The scam only came to light when Siam contacted Logix by WhatsApp and phone to ask why funds had not been received.
With the engines withheld due to non-payment, Logix sued in the High Court, alleging that Siam breached a confidentiality clause by allowing sensitive information to reach the fraudster, or alternatively, that Siam had placed the fraudster in a position of “apparent authority” — making it liable for failing to deliver the engines despite receiving “payment”. Siam applied for the claim to be struck out.
Embed from Getty ImagesMrs Justice Heather Williams dismissed Logix’s argument on apparent authority. The legal concept applies when a party represents, or allows it to be represented, that another person has authority to act on its behalf. However, the judge noted that, according to Logix’s own case, both sides believed they were communicating directly with each other — there was no understanding that a third party was involved at all.
She concluded:
“The concept of apparent authority has no application… both parties thought they were dealing with each other, rather than believing that an agent was involved on [Siam’s] behalf.”
The claim for breach of confidentiality also failed. The judge found no allegation that Siam had introduced the fraudster into the email chain, nor that it had created conditions enabling the scam. Even if a breach had occurred, it did not cause the loss — the fraudster’s actions did.
With no reasonable prospect of success, the judge struck out the entire claim.
The case highlights how easily cybercriminals can infiltrate business transactions and the devastating consequences for victims. In this instance, there were warning signs that could have raised suspicion — the fraudster’s email addresses shifted from “.com” to “.co.” and the payment request directed funds to a Vietnamese account with no link to either party or the goods’ location.
The judgment underscores the need for robust verification processes when handling large transactions. Basic measures — such as calling a known contact to confirm bank details — could have prevented this costly error.
With cybercrime operations becoming increasingly sophisticated, businesses face mounting pressure to protect themselves from schemes that exploit even the smallest lapses in vigilance.
