Commercial Disputes Weekly Issue 285 19 May 2026

AVIATION – INSURANCE

In the next instalment of the insurance disputes arising from the detention of aircraft following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the Commercial Court has given summary judgment and strike out of contribution claims brought by Chubb and Fidelis against various defendant war risk underwriters. Chubb and Fidelis were found liable under contingent war risks cover taken out by the aircraft lessors, which was designed to respond when the operator policies failed to respond. They asserted that the defendants were also liable for this same loss under the operator policies and had they indemnified the assureds under those policies, Chubb and Fidelis would not have been liable at all or to this level. The contribution claims were based on three principles of (i) where a secondary obligor discharges a primary obligor’s liability; (ii) double insurance; and (iii) under the Civil Liability and Contribution Act 1978. The court held that the claims would fail on various grounds including that there was no double insurance because the liabilities under the lessor and operator policies were not the same, there was no subrogated claim in the assured’s name and the 1978 Act did not apply because the liability was a debt rather than damages.

Re The Russian Aircraft Litigation – Operator Policy Claims [2026] EWHC 1134 (Comm), 13 May 2026

LANDLORD AND TENANT

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the County Court in relation to the interpretation of an option to renew a business tenancy. The tenant wished to renew the tenancy but did not want to use the contractual option clause because it would lead to higher rent than the prevailing market rent. Instead the tenant wanted to request a new tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“1954 Act”). The court rejected the landlord’s argument that the protection of the 1954 Act was excluded by section 28 of that Act. The unexercised option was not a “future tenancy of the holding” to which the 1954 Act protections did not apply.

Caterpillar Property Ltd v Park Cakes Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 575, 13 May 2026

INJUNCTIONS

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a High Court judge was correct to uphold the validity of English law and London arbitration jurisdiction clauses in various banking agreements between JP Morgan entities and VTB, a Russian bank. VTB became sanctioned after the invasion of Ukraine and JP Morgan sought to close out various accounts and froze funds. VTB commenced proceedings in Russia asserting tortious claims under Russian law. JP Morgan obtained anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions. The Court of Appeal held that the JP Morgan entities were entitled to invoke the LCIA arbitration clauses and that they could not be circumvented by bringing a claim in tort. Further, the judge had not erred in concluding that the Russian claims were vexatious and oppressive.

J.P. Morgan Securities Plc v VTB Bank PJSC [2026] EWCA Civ 589, 12 May 2026

REAL ESTATE

A company was not entitled to an order relating to collective enfranchisement by the tenants of flats in Bennets Courtyard. The notice claiming the right to collective enfranchisement had been given to a company, BCFL, who had completed on a transfer of the freehold of the premises, but the transfer had not yet been registered at the Land Registry. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 required the notice to be given to the registered legal owner, not an unregistered transferee.

Bennets Courtyard Ltd v Bennets Courtyard Airspace Ltd [2026] EWHC 1119 (Ch), 12 May 2026