CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc v Singapore Airlines Ltd: Aircraft Valuation, Breach of Contract & Damages Assessment

CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc appealed against the decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) regarding the assessment of damages owed to Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIA) for CSDS's repudiatory breach of a contract to purchase a Boeing 777-212 aircraft. The Court of Appeal upheld the SICC's assessment, finding that the Judge appropriately considered both factual and expert evidence to determine the aircraft's market value and the reasonable time for a substitute sale. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered CSDS to pay costs to SIA.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning damages for CSDS's breach of contract to purchase an aircraft from SIA. The court assessed the aircraft's market value and upheld the damages award.

1.7 Decision Date

18 June 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc	Appellant, Defendant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Shobna Chandran of Tan Rajah & Cheah Yong Manling Jasmine of Tan Rajah & Cheah Thaddaeus Aaron Tan of Tan Rajah & Cheah Marissa Daisy Decruz of Tan Rajah & Cheah
Singapore Airlines Limited	Respondent, Plaintiff	Corporation	Appeal Upheld	Won	Tan Teck San Kelvin of Drew & Napier LLC Yip Ting Yuan Darren of Drew & Napier LLC Kenneth Kwek Junjie of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Beverley McLachlin	International Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Shobna Chandran	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Yong Manling Jasmine	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Thaddaeus Aaron Tan	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Marissa Daisy Decruz	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Tan Teck San Kelvin	Drew & Napier LLC
Yip Ting Yuan Darren	Drew & Napier LLC
Kenneth Kwek Junjie	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

CSDS entered into a contract to purchase a Boeing 777-212 aircraft from SIA for US$6.5m.
CSDS paid a deposit of US$250,000 but failed to pay the remaining US$6.25m.
SIA accepted CSDS's repudiatory breach of contract on 4 November 2018.
SIA attempted to resell the aircraft, issuing RFPs in November 2018 and March 2019.
The highest bid received was US$2.1m, but the bidder later reduced/withdrew the bid.
A March 2019 RFP resulted in a bid of US$1.315m for the components without the airframe.
SIA decided not to proceed with the US$1.315m bid, considering redeployment of the Aircraft.

5. Formal Citations

CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing IncvSingapore Airlines Limited, Civil Appeal No 8 of 2022, [2023] SGCA(I) 5

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-09-19	Contract signed for CSDS to purchase a Boeing 777-212 aircraft from SIA.
2018-11-04	SIA accepted CSDS's repudiatory breach of contract, bringing the contract to an end.
2018-11-20	SIA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sale of the Aircraft.
2018-11-29	SIA placed a public advertisement on “Aeroconnect” for the sale of the Aircraft.
2019-03-12	SIA issued a further RFP for the sale of the Aircraft components.
2019-05-01	SIA placed public advertisements on “Aeroconnect” and “Airfax” for the sale of the Aircraft.
2022-01-01	Assessment of Damages No 1 of 2022
2023-05-05	Court of Appeal dismissed CAS 8.
2023-06-19	Grounds of Decision delivered by the court.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court upheld the finding that CSDS was in repudiatory breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Repudiatory Breach
  - Failure to Pay
  - Assessment of Damages
Valuation of Aircraft
- Outcome: The court determined the market value of the aircraft based on factual and expert evidence, including a third-party offer.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Market Value Determination
  - Expert Evidence
  - Third-Party Offers
Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court upheld the award of damages, including consequential damages and parking/maintenance charges, based on a six-month period for a substitute sale.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Consequential Damages
  - Reasonable Time for Substitute Sale
  - Parking and Maintenance Charges
Expert Evidence
- Outcome: The court clarified the role of expert evidence in valuation and determined that the Judge was entitled to reject a mistaken concession made by the expert.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Weight of Evidence
  - Concessions by Expert
  - Reliance on Expert Opinion

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Parking and Maintenance Fees
Legal Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Appeals
Contract Disputes
Aviation Transactions

11. Industries

Aviation
Aircraft Sales and Leasing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC(I) 15	Singapore	Underlying judgment being appealed; concerns an award of damages by an International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court following an assessment of damages hearing.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 26	Singapore	Cited for the trial on liability where the SICC found that CSDS was in repudiatory breach of contract.
CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc v Singapore Airlines Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 284	Singapore	Cited for the appeal where the finding that CSDS was in repudiatory breach of contract was upheld.
Armstrong, Carol Ann (executrix of the estate of Peter Traynor, deceased, and on behalf of the dependents of Peter Traynor, deceased) v Quest Laboratories Pte Ltd and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 133	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court's determination as to whether it should accept parts of an expert’s evidence is guided by considerations of consistency, logic and coherence.
Abhilash s/o Kunchian Krishnan v Yeo Hock Huat and another	High Court	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 873	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the process of valuing assets is largely fact-sensitive in nature and is typically reliant on expert evidence to assist the court and that evidence of a genuine third-party offer to acquire an asset, made at arm’s length, and which is not speculative or conditional should be taken into account when determining fair market value.
Lim Chong Poon v Chiang Sing Jeong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 27	Singapore	Cited for the principle that evidence of a genuine third-party offer to acquire an asset, made at arm’s length, and which is not speculative or conditional should be taken into account when determining fair market value.
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2023] 3 SLR 140	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the SICC rejected certain assumptions made by the expert in her valuation report on the value of a production licence as those assumptions did not square with the factual matrix and there was no evidential basis to support them.
AerCap Partners I Ltd v Avia Asset Management AB	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2010] EWHC 2431 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the seller was held to be entitled to the difference between the contract price and the substantially lower price at which it actually resold the aircrafts many months after the buyer’s contractual repudiation.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is no rule of law that the court must unquestioningly accept the unchallenged evidence of any witness, even for expert witnesses.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 1129	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should carefully consider the factual or other premises on which the expert based his opinion, and should examine the correctness of the expert’s premises and reasoning process.
Poh Fu Tek and others v Lee Shung Guan and others	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 425	Singapore	Cited for the principle that although a court will give weight to a concession extracted from the cross-examination of an expert, the court must still apply its mind as to the conclusions to be drawn from the concession made.
Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin Christina and another	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 326	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court was found to have wrongly rejected the views of an expert without any sound grounds, concerning a scientific issue outside the learnings of the court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
English Sale of Goods Act 1979 (c 54) (UK)	United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Repudiatory Breach
Market Value
Aircraft Valuation
Request for Proposals
Substitute Sale
Expert Evidence
Reasonable Time
Trent 884 Engines
Trent 875 Engines
Maximum Take-Off Weight
Airframe
Aircraft Components

15.2 Keywords

aircraft
valuation
breach of contract
damages
singapore airlines
leasing
aviation law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Damages Assessment	85
Valuation of Aircraft	80
Breach of Contract	75
Contract Law	70
Aircraft Sales and Leasing	65
Evidence	60
Commercial Law	50
Commercial Disputes	40

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Commercial Law
Aviation Law
Damages