Case Nos: CL-2022-000294; CL-2022-000557; - [2025] EWHC 2529 (Comm)

Payments on Account

AerCap and HFW AR Insurers made applications for payments on account of their costs. There was no dispute that orders for payments on account of costs were, in principle, appropriate.

AerCap’s total costs are said to be approximately £81 million. It sought an interim payment of 50% of that, or of whatever proportion of its costs it was found entitled to recover. War Risks Insurers described these costs as ‘astronomical’. They said that the figure for solicitors’ costs of some £54.5 million was ‘grossly excessive’, the sum for brief fees of almost £9 million was ‘plainly excessive, particularly in light of the limited role played by AerCap’s counsel at trial’, and that the sum to which AerCap will be entitled on a detailed assessment will be far lower than the total amount incurred. They suggested that an interim payment should be only of 30% of AerCap’s costs or of whatever proportion of those costs they were ordered to pay.

In my judgment there are clearly unusually serious issues as to the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs incurred by AerCap. I consider that the appropriate percentage for the purposes of an interim payment is of 45% of the proportion of its costs that I have found AerCap entitled to recover. 45% might in other cases be a somewhat conservative figure to use for a payment on account, but given the size of AerCap’s claimed costs and the other points raised by War Risks Insurers it appears to me to be justified in this case.

In relation to HFW AR Insurers’ costs, where the issues of proportionality and reasonableness, though real, are not as stark as in relation to AerCap’s total costs, I consider that the appropriate percentage to use is of 50%.