High Court Examines Contractual Interpretation Regarding Time Constraints in Aircraft Lease Agreement Dispute

Citation: [2024] EWHC 371 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation v Sprite Aviation No. 6 DAC, the High Court of Justice in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales addressed a dispute over the interpretation of an operating lease agreement related to an Airbus A320-200 aircraft. The case presents an in-depth examination of contractual interpretation, particularly around the issues of ‘time of essence’ and ‘condition precedent’ as they pertain to the submission and processing of invoices for reimbursement of maintenance work under an aircraft lease agreement.

Key Facts

Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation (“Saudia”) as the lessee sought reimbursement for maintenance work under an operating lease from the lessor, Sprite Aviation No. 6 DAC (“Sprite”). Sprite denied reimbursement, citing Saudia’s failure to provide satisfactory paperwork within the specified timeframe as per the lease. The lease, initially between another party and Saudia, had by various transactions become a contract between Sprite as the Lessor, which leased the aircraft to Saudia. The dispute centers around whether the provision of paperwork by Saudia before the lease’s expiry date was a mandatory condition for reimbursement (condition precedent) and whether time was of the essence in this contractual clause.

Several legal principles were invoked during the case:

  1. Contractual Interpretation: The principles of contractual interpretation were underscored by referring to leading authorities from the Supreme Court such as Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank, Arnold v Britton, and Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd. The court asserts that the intention of the parties, the natural and ordinary meaning of the clause, the overall purpose of the contract, and commercial common sense must guide interpretation, discounting hindsight in assessing these factors.

  2. Time of the Essence: This principle is applied where either the parties have expressly stipulated such within a contract or the nature of the agreement inherently necessitates strict compliance concerning time. The principle signifies that deviation from the specified timing within a contract allows the aggrieved party to regard the contract as repudiated.

  3. Condition Precedent: The concept of a condition precedent entails a contractual term that must be met before a party’s right or obligation comes into existence. Non-fulfillment of such a condition can potentially discharge the obligated party from their duty to perform under the contract.

  4. Section 41 of the Law of Property Act 1925: The statute consolidates the common law and equity approach, suggesting that contractual stipulations about time are generally not tantamount to ‘of the essence’ unless explicitly provided or in cases where the contract nature requires it.


The court’s preliminary findings indicate that while the provision of invoices within a specified timeframe as per Clause 7.2 of the contract acted as a condition for Saudia’s entitlement to reimbursement, the contractual terms were not sufficiently definite to conclude that any delay would result in a forfeiture of the right to claim reimbursement indefinitely.

The court indicated a need for expert evidence to inform the judicial interpretation, acknowledging that both parties put forth plausible yet competing submissions related to industry practice in aviation finance and leasing. Hence, the judge decided not to make a conclusive ruling at this stage and allowed for the possibility of expert opinions to play a role in the final decision.


The case explores nuanced aspects of contractual obligations concerning the timing of performance. It remains to be seen how expert evidence will sway the court’s final interpretation of what the parties intended concerning the timing for invoicing and the consequences of non-compliance. The decision underscores the importance of clarity in drafting contractual provisions, particularly those related to key performance obligations like payments and submissions of documentation. Legal professionals should closely review such contract clauses for explicit language regarding timing requirements to avoid disputes of this nature.

Related Summaries