17th Feb 2026 | Articles & Newsletters
Christopher Loxton & Adam Riley examine a recent High Court case on civil fraud in the aviation context: Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Co Ltd [2025].
“… fraud is a thing apart. This is not a mere slogan. It reflects an old legal rule that fraud unravels all: fraus omnia corrumpit.”[1]
Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Co Ltd[2] is a High Court case concerning who bears the loss when a sophisticated email fraud diverts a significant payment in an aircraft engine sale. A fraudster impersonated a party to the deal and tricked the buyer into sending the purchase money to the fraudster’s bank account. The court had to decide whether that mistaken payment legally counted as payment to the seller. The judgment is a handy reference for civil fraud and aviation practitioners, exploring the doctrine of apparent authority and how English law allocates risk in cyber-fraud scenarios.
Logix Aero Ireland Ltd (“Logix”), a company incorporated in the Republic of Ireland, and Siam Aero Repair Co Ltd (“Siam”), a company incorporated in Thailand, were companies engaged in the purchase, repair, sale and lease of aircraft engines. They entered into a sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) under which Logix agreed to buy two aircraft engines from Siam. The parties conducted their negotiations largely by email. This reliance on email communications created the opportunity for the fraud.
A fraudster inserted themselves into the email correspondence between the parties, in a way that led them to believe they were still dealing with one another when, in fact, both were communicating with the fraudster, who was doctoring their communications before sending them on to the other party. Shortly before completion, the fraudster either gained access to, or convincingly spoofed, an email account connected with Siam’s side of the deal. The fraudster sent Logix new bank account details, for an account in Vietnam, claiming they were for receipt of the purchase price. The email appeared genuine and fitted naturally into the ongoing thread of transactional correspondence.
Logix, believing the message to be authentic, arranged for monies representing the purchase price to be transferred to the specified account. In reality, the account was controlled by the fraudster. Siam therefore never received the money, and by the time the fraud was discovered the funds had been dissipated and were irrecoverable.
This left a stark problem: Logix had paid out the money but not to Siam; Siam had not been paid but was ready to perform its side of the contract.
The key issue was whether it was arguable Logix’s transfer of funds to the fraudster discharged its contractual obligation to pay Siam under the SPA. If it did, Siam would bear the loss. If it did not, Logix would still owe the price and would suffer the loss itself. Logix’s position, that a binding agreement was reached for the sale and purchase of the engines, which it was said Siam had subsequently failed to uphold, depended primarily on an argument that the fraudster had acted with Siam’s apparent authority. Siam invited the court to strike-out or grant reverse summary judgment on Logix’s claim.
The Judge concluded that Logix’s contention, that the fraudster had acted with Siam’s apparent authority, had no realistic prospect of success. Apparent authority was explained in the joint judgment of Lords Reed, Lloyd-Jones and Kitchin, in The Law Debenture Trust Corp PLC v Ukraine [2023] UKSC 11 at §39, as describing among other things a “relationship between the principal and a contractor which arises from a representation made by the principal to the contractor”. The Judge held that no representation was made by Siam that another party, i.e. the fraudster, was authorised to act on its behalf in Siam’s negotiations with Logix, and that there was no pleaded allegation or supporting evidence that Logix ever believed it was negotiating with an agent acting with apparent authority granted by Siam. Instead, Logix believed it was communicating with Siam at all material times.
Logix also sought to argue that Siam was at fault for sending confidential materials to the fraudster, in the course of the email negotiations it believed it was undertaking with Logix. The Judge dismissed this point. Even if Logix could show breach of the confidentiality clause negotiated by the parties on this basis, the Judge held Logix would be unable to show that the breaches alleged caused loss. This was because the fraudster needed communications from both Siam and Logix to pull off the fraud and both parties’ emails assisted the fraudster to that end.
The Judge struck out Logix’s claim and awarded Siam its costs on the indemnity basis. It provides a reminder of the risks of sophisticated cyber-fraud facing parties negotiating complex transactions via email and of the need for particular care to be taken when building or defending cases alleging fraud. It also accords with the usual principles governing the allocation of risks in commercial contracts governed by English law. Because Logix was unable to cast the fraudster as Siam’s unwitting agent, and there being no other basis on which to assert Siam had acted negligently or in breach of contract, the loss fell at Logix’s door.
[1] HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank and others [2003] UKHL 6, per Lord Bingham at §15:
[2] [2025] EWHC 1283 (KB)
Please contact us either by telephone: +44 (0)20 7415 7800 or email: clerks@3harecourt.com
