UK: Is the Pindell Case Manifestation of the Law of Unintended Consequences?

Last Updated: 5 April 2011
Article by Zohar Zik

Zohar Zik1 considers the decision of Pindell Limited v AirAsia Berhad2, in which the court rejected a claim made by an aircraft lessor against the lessee for damages relating to the loss of the sale of the aircraft due to late redelivery by the lessee. In particular, he examines the implications of the decision on the leasing industry and offers some practical steps that parties to leasing transactions might wish to consider when attempting to mitigate them.

Facts

This claim concerned an aircraft which was owned by Pindell Limited (Pindell) but operated by AirAsia Berhad (AirAsia) under a sublease agreement which was granted in June 2003 for a five-year term by Pindell's lessee, BBAM Aircraft holdings 98 (Labuan) Ltd (BBAM).

By 2007, the aircraft was 20 years old, an age described as a "watershed" in the life of a commercial jet aircraft. In February 2008, BBAM, acting on Pindell's behalf, agreed to sell the aircraft to an unconnected leasing company by 1 August 2008 for a very attractive price. The sale agreement allowed the purchaser to terminate if Pindell failed to perform its obligations thereunder.

Due to significant mechanical problems, AirAsia failed to redeliver the aircraft at lease expiry and, in fact, the aircraft was only returned in November 2008. By then, aircraft values had plummeted and, consequently, the purchaser had exercised its option to terminate the sale agreement and walked away from the deal.

Issues

There were two key questions of law in this case: firstly, was AirAsia contractually obliged to redeliver the aircraft by the contractual expiry date of 17 June 2008 and, if so, was BBAM estopped from asserting that AirAsia was, in that regard, in breach of contract? Secondly, if BBAM was not estopped, could it claim in respect of the loss of the follow-on sale?

Attending to the first issue, the judge considered the redelivery provisions in the sublease and concluded that AirAsia was obliged – and had failed – to deliver the aircraft for technical inspection before 17 June 2008 and that, notwithstanding the fact that BBAM had, in practice, extended the lease period and the termination date, AirAsia was therefore in breach of contract. The judge also found that BBAM was not estopped from asserting that AirAsia was in breach. This was because there had not been the requisite common assumption between the parties that redelivery after the original expiry date would not be regarded as a breach of contract by AirAsia or that BBAM would not seek to insist on its legal rights.

Having established that AirAsia's breach was actionable, the judge then considered whether BBAM could succeed in a claim for damages in respect of the loss of the follow-on sale, and found that it could not. The judge also concluded that, as a matter of construction, BBAM could not claim under the contractual indemnities.

Comment

Reading through the Pindell judgment, one cannot avoid asking whether the "new" approach promulgated by The Achilleas3 and then applied in Pindell is a manifestation of the law of unintended consequences. Sadly, it appears that, as far as it applies to adjudicating disputes over aircraft operating leases, the answer would probably be "yes".

In The Achilleas, the dispute revolved around the late redelivery of a vessel with the consequence for the owner that a new charterer accepted the vessel, but following a fall in freight rates in the meantime, did so at a reduced rate. The owner sought to recover the difference between the original and the reduced rate of hire from the original charterer, but failed.

In the House of Lords, when considering the question of recovery of consequential losses, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope accepted that the Hadley v Baxendale test of reasonable contemplation would continue to be the norm but advocated a refinement of the test in "unusual" cases (unusual by reference to the circumstances of a case or by reason of the relevant market) by requiring consideration of whether the defendant had assumed contractual responsibility for a given type of loss. In contrast, two other law lords reached the same decision, but on the basis of the traditional Hadley v Baxendale test of reasonable contemplation. Although there has been some doubt as to what was the underlying ratio of this judgment, the decisions in Pindell and in a number of other cases4 seem to suggest that Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope's "new" approach is the prevailing ratio.

On its face, this trend is good news for businesses as it gives courts presiding over disputes greater flexibility in formulating what they consider to be the most commercially sensible outcome. But this may not necessarily be the case. In Pindell, for example, the judge accepted the view that lessees enter into operating leases primarily because they do not wish to be exposed to residual value fluctuations, and deduced that, if a lessee knew it was going to be exposed to the risk of lessor's loss of follow-on sale or lease, it would be easier for that lessee to buy rather than lease an aircraft. This conclusion is, however, somewhat simplistic, to say the least.

Ignoring the fact that many lessees use operating leases because they simply cannot afford to buy an aircraft, the basic premise of operating leasing is as follows: the lessor's interest in the aircraft is purely financial with a view to making a return on the asset through leasing it during its useful lifetime and eventually disposing of it in one form or another. The lessee's interest in the aircraft, on the other hand, is purely operational with a view to making a return through utilisation over the term of the lease. However, for the lease term the lessee's position vis-à-vis the aircraft is tantamount to ownership in all material respects. This dichotomy translates itself into rigid lease conditions for maintenance, operation and redelivery of the aircraft, aimed at maintaining aircraft value (barring extrinsic factors) and optimising follow-on transferability. The lessor is totally dependent on the lessee to comply with those obligations and, if the lessee fails to do so, the lessor's long term investment in the aircraft could be in jeopardy – at no fault of its own – and this exposure is particularly acute at redelivery. In these circumstances, it's not only just, but also sensible that the lessee and not the lessor should be liable for the loss of a follow-on lease or sale.

In Pindell, once the judge concluded that the risk of a loss of follow-on sale was the lessor's as a matter of principle, it was easy for him to conclude that the real reason for the loss was, in fact, the volatility of the market, echoing the views expressed by Lord Rodger in The Achilleas5.

Leaving other factors aside (such as the fact that the age of the leased aircraft should not have been given such prominence by the judge, as both parties knew from the outset that it would be 20 years old at lease expiry), the fact that the market was, at the relevant time, particularly volatile should have been neither here nor there in terms of allocating responsibility for the loss in this case. Taken to the extreme, this judgment means that lessors, such as BBAM, with more than 250 aircraft on its books, might need to consider whether they need to report the possibility of losing follow-on sales as a result of lessees defaulting on redelivery obligations as a new, contingent and substantial portfolio-based liability.

As such, this decision could present lessors with significant, undue exposures, leaving them with seemingly very little in terms of mitigation. Whilst lessors could, in theory, seek to pass the financial burden of the new risks back onto lessees by way of increased rentals, such a broad-brushed approach could be counterproductive and detrimental to all concerned, but to lessees in particular. Some other, less draconian options that lessors might wish to explore could be:

  1. To agree with the lessee from the outset who should be responsible for this type of loss and make sure this is clearly documented in the lease.
  2. To ensure that any follow-on sale agreement contains:

    1. Delivery conditions that match, as much as possible, the lease redelivery conditions.
    2. A longstop period which reflects the transactions at hand, taking account of the age or type of the aircraft and any projected complexities surrounding redelivery, including any bridging works that may be required.

  3. To inform the lessee of any follow-on sale agreement as soon as it has been agreed.
  4. To tighten up the contractual indemnity provisions to ensure that they are wide enough to cover the lessor in these instances. In Pindell, the judge concluded that BBAM could not claim under the contractual indemnity as a matter of construction. It remains unclear whether a more widely drafted clause would have given BBAM the contractual right it needed to pass the actual risk of loss to AirAsia; having reviewed the relevant provisions in the sublease, as recited in the judgment, it is possible a more tightly worded clause may have achieved this.
  5. To agree a liquidated damages provision that will be case specific and truly reflect the parties' attempt to pre-estimate the likely losses that could arise in the event of late redelivery. By contrast, in Pindell (as is the case with most aircraft leases), the lease provided for a payment of rent at 150 per cent of the basic rent in the event of late redelivery in excess of 21 days. This holdover rent was not an exclusive remedy and was payable in addition to any other damages the lessor might have sustained as a result of the delay; such "other damages" were then found to be unrecoverable.

The decision in Pindell presents the industry with a number of new exposures that lessors and lessees need to be addressing during lease negotiations and throughout the life of the lease to make sure that their respective obligations are clearly defined, complied with and, to the extent necessary, appropriately priced.

Footnotes

1. Zohar is the former General Counsel – Aviation of TUI Travel PLC

2. [2010] EWHC 2516 (Comm)

3. The Achilleas [2008] UKHL 48

4. See Supershield Ltd v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 7 and Sylvia Shipping Co Ltd v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd [2010] EWHC 542 (Comm)

5. And to some extent Lord Walker as well, but his Lordship also agreed with Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions