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

Dealing, first, with VietJet’s prior conduct, a number of matters are highlighted, all of which are aspects that I have previously had cause to address, whether in my initial judgment dealing with liability or in subsequent rulings. These are concerned, to take an example, with what was stated by VietJet in the aftermath of the liability judgment, in relation to which I have previously made certain criticisms. These are aspects, however, I agree with Mr Thompson, which do not go very far.

First, they are aspects which are necessarily of some age, in the sense that they are not recent matters, and it is in this context to be noted that there has been no previous application by FWA for freezing order relief. Putting the matter shortly, if the previous conduct of VietJet was considered to justify an application for freezing order relief by FWA, then, it is curious that no such application has previously been made. This demonstrates, in my view (and rightly) that these are matters which do not, in and of themselves or cumulatively within their own category, justify the grant of the freezing order relief now sought.

There is, in this context, a further point to bear in mind. This is the point made by Henshaw J in Arcelormittal USA LLC v Ruia & Ors [2020] EWHC 740 (Comm) at [219(vi)]. Henshaw J said this:

“Where a defendant knows that he faces legal proceedings for a substantial period of time prior to the grant of the order, and does not take steps to dissipate his assets, that can be a powerful factor militating against any conclusion of a real risk of dissipation (see e.g. Candy v Holyoake [2017] EWCA Civ 92… § 62 and Petroceltic Resources Ltd v Archer [2018] EWHC 671 (Comm) §§ 58, 64-65).”

This is a case in which VietJet has been fully engaged since 2022. It is not a case where VietJet has chosen to take no part. On the contrary and as I have indicated, VietJet has taken a substantial part in what is hotly fought litigation. It follows that the previous conduct relied upon by FWA is not conduct which I consider to have any particular significance in relation to the application now made.