Aeroflot case dismissed, claim for compensation not accepted

The Commercial High Court delivered the order in relation to the case filed by Celestial Aviation Trading Limited against Aeroflot on 15 July, dismissing the case. 

Justice Sumith Perera delivered the order based on a preliminary objection raised by the Defendants, Aeroflot and Acting Head of Air Navigation N.C. Abeywardena objecting to the jurisdiction of court to hear and determine the matter.

The aircraft owned by the Plaintiff, Celestial Aviation, which is admittedly in the possession and being operated by the Russian carrier, Aeroflot, was grounded on 2 June pursuant to an enjoining order issued by the Commercial High Court on an application made by Celestial Aviation.

The dispute between two private entities referred to court, took a dramatic turn following the enjoining orders with Aeroflot announcing the suspension of operation of flights to Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan envoy in Russia being summoned by the Foreign Ministry of Russia to mark their protest over the grounded aircraft and several state officials making statements undertaking to resolve the matter to restore diplomatic relations between the two countries. 

The enjoining orders were thereafter suspended on 6 June on an application made by the Defendants and the aircraft left Sri Lanka on the same day. 

On 5 July the Plaintiff informed court that they no longer wish to pursue the interim injunction application and sought to proceed to the permanent injunction stage in the proceedings, at which point the Defendants raised a preliminary objection to court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter seeking a dismissal of the case. Parties filed their written submissions, and the order was delivered on 15 July dismissing the action.

Court has, in its order, acknowledged that it had jurisdiction to grant the enjoining orders, in order to preserve the subject matter of a dispute which was referred to arbitration pending the constitution of the arbitration tribunal citing cases which have already decided this point. The court goes on to dismiss the action on the basis that it no longer has jurisdiction since the aircraft has left Sri Lanka.

After the court dismissed the action, counsel appearing for Aeroflot sought to tender an application to court, claiming compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the aircraft being grounded. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff strongly objected to such application being made in an action which was by then dismissed.

Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted to court that the court could not entertain any applications in a case which no longer existed, in light of the proceedings being terminated upon the dismissal of the case. Court therefore refused to accept Aeroflot’s application for compensation and directed Aeroflot to make a fresh application if they wish to do so.