Contract
Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Company Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 510
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Logix’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out the proceedings pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. The proceedings arose from an email interception fraud whereby unknown fraudsters inserted themselves into email correspondence between Logix (the appellant) and Siam Aero (the respondent) during negotiations for the purchase of two aircraft engines. The fraudsters procured that Logix paid the purchase price of US$824,900 to a bank account under their control in Vietnam rather than to Siam Aero’s account in Thailand. Logix sought to recover its loss from Siam Aero on the basis that the loss was caused by Siam Aero’s breach of a binding confidentiality clause contained in a letter of understanding signed by the parties. The judge accepted that it was arguable that Siam Aero was in breach of the confidentiality clause by unwittingly disclosing documents and information to the fraudsters, but held that it was not arguable that any
