English Court Grants Worldwide Freezing Order Against Vietjet in FitzWalter Aviation Dispute Over Four Leased Aircraft

The High Court of England and Wales granted FitzWalter Aviation (FWA) a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) in support of enforcement of a judgment against Vietnamese carrier Vietjet. The Court found there was a real risk of asset dissipation, the source says on October 15, 2026.

Alongside the WFO, a separate order provided for the appointment of a receiver over assets.

The dispute centres on four aircraft embedded in multi-party financing arrangements, under which ownership, security interests and operational rights were divided among different parties. Such arrangements typically place legal title with specialised leasing companies, private credit funds or special purpose vehicles established by equity investors. These entities buy aircraft from manufacturers such as Airbus or Boeing and lease them to airlines under multi-year agreements, and pre-delivery payments may be made to the manufacturer while aircraft are still in production.

The account comes from an outside contribution published by EU Reporter. It argues that the impact of any freezing order must be assessed against the terms of the order, the rights of the parties involved and the evidence relating to the assets concerned.

It warns that delayed aircraft deliveries could leave airlines short of capacity in peak seasons and force banks and suppliers to reassess financing and supply schedules. If repeated, it says, such disruption could erode confidence in aviation financing markets.

It also cautions that operational disruption used as settlement leverage could encourage so-called vulture investing.

Aircraft financing spreads legal title, security interests and operating rights across lessors, funds, special purpose vehicles and airlines. A court order aimed at a lessee's assets therefore lands on a structure in which several parties hold distinct claims, and the scope of any freeze depends on exactly whose rights attach to which asset.

For lessors, lenders and manufacturers extending pre-delivery finance, the case illustrates why enforcement risk against an airline counterparty is priced into multi-party structures. The commentary's concern is that repeated use of disruption as leverage could shift how financiers view that risk across the market.

The practical test is in the order itself: its terms, the rights of the parties holding interests in the four aircraft, and the evidence tied to the assets concerned.