CL-2022-000467 - [2025] EWHC 1920 (Comm)

I turn to the second aspect relied upon by FWA, namely what is described as misleading submissions by VietJet as to attempts to raise money to satisfy the judgment debts. In relation to this, Mr Lissack highlights how, at the hearing on 1 May 2025, Mr Thompson, on behalf of VietJet, and no doubt on instructions from VietJet, described VietJet as taking “active and urgent steps” to raise the monies to pay FWA pursuant to the orders which I had made.

Mr Lissack submits that that assurance to the Court has not been borne out by the material now available to FWA and, indeed, the Court in relation to the present application. First, Mr Lissack highlights, as I have indicated, that apart from the modest US$2 million paid on 19 May 2025, no other payment has been made. Mr Lissack speculates that that modest payment was made for tactical purposes in any event, given the proximity of the Court of Appeal hearing, and not because of any true commitment to meet the judgment debts. Secondly, Mr Lissack highlights how, in the witness statement submitted by Mr Donal Boylan from VietJet in response to the present application, a witness statement dated 14 July 2025, no description is given as to the efforts that VietJet had made in the lead-up to the 1 May 2025 hearing. Mr Lissack suggests that that is somewhat surprising in the circumstances.

I am clear, notwithstanding those submissions, that there is no substance in the criticism sought to be made. The fact that the judgment debts have not been discharged does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that active steps were not being taken as at the 1 May hearing. Indeed, in this respect, it is worth bearing in mind what was stated in the second witness statement of Sarah Walker dated 27 April 2025, which was before the Court on 1 May 2025. In that statement, under the heading “Raising funding to pay the Judgment would take time” and in support of the application then being made by VietJet for a stay of execution of some six months or so, Ms Walker described at paragraph 27, amongst other things, VietJet as “also investigating the possibility of one of its major shareholders, Mdm Thao, assisting it to raise financing from third-party sources”.

There is no reason to suppose that what Ms Walker had to say there was wrong. Indeed, it is confirmed by what was subsequently stated in the accounts which were produced on 10 May 2025, specifically at Note 40 where this is stated, amongst other things:

“On 17 April 2025, the Commercial Court issued a quantum judgement, recognising the Claimant’s right to claim damages and contract termination … in relation to the four (04) aircraft leases. Under this judgement, the Group is liable for certain costs and compensation arising from the termination of these lease agreements.”

What is, then, stated is as follows:

“The Company’s Board of Management, after consulting with legal advisors, has assessed that:

(i)

the Group has reasonable legal grounds to continue pursuing the appeal;

(ii)

as at the date of these consolidated financial statements, the Group had submitted a request and received written confirmation from a major shareholder affirming their commitment to arrange third-party financing for the Group in the event that obligations arise in connection with the ongoing legal proceedings…”.

Mr Lissack makes certain criticisms of what is stated in these notes, which seem to me to have some merit, specifically the absence of any mention of the judgment debts and the timescale ordered at the hearing on 1 May 2025. However, for present purposes, it is significant, in my assessment, that what is there stated concerning a major shareholder affirming their commitment to arrange third-party financing for the group, is consistent with what Ms Walker was telling the Court in her second witness statement.

All in all, I am not satisfied that there was any misleading of the Court on 1 May 2025, and therefore that there were any inaccurate statements made which would justify a conclusion that there is here a sufficient risk of dissipation.