You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 22, 2020

Court Affirms Thai Civil Aviation Authority’s Ability to Repossess Leased Aircraft in Default

Tilleke & Gibbins advised Air Lease Corporation, a publicly listed American aircraft leasing company, on the repossession of two Boeing 737 aircraft with a combined value of over USD 80 million from a Thai airline that defaulted on its payments, in a case that confirmed, for the first time, the CAAT’s ability to repossess aircraft in default without a court order.

We assisted the client in liaising with the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) to obtain the deregistration of both aircraft, and filed a case with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court to seek the return of the aircraft and monetary compensation for our client.

The defendant-airline asked the Thai Administrative Court, a special court to hear disputes between private entities and Thai government agencies, to review the legality of CAAT’s deregistration order. Our firm joined the case in the Administrative Court, on the same side as the CAAT.

We worked with CAAT to defend the case and obtain a favorable judgment for our client and CAAT. The Administrative Court ruled that CAAT’s deregistration order was legal, and that CAAT had the legal authority to deregister aircraft.

The Administrative Court decision has important implications for Thai aviation, especially for aircraft leasing, financing, and repossession. Thai law is ambiguous on whether CAAT has the authority to deregister aircraft. The law only states that an aircraft’s registration with CAAT becomes ineffective if the registrant (i.e. the Thai airline) no longer has possessory rights. As a result, CAAT has traditionally deregistered aircraft only with a court order (though in other repossession cases we have successfully convinced CAAT to deregister without a court order).

Ultimately we successfully argued to the Administrative Court that our client’s lease agreement with the airline was validly terminated, and, under the terms of the agreement and Thai law, the airline lost its possessory rights to the aircraft. Because of the Administrative Court decision, CAAT now has a stronger legal basis to deregister aircraft without a court order. We expect that this will enable aircraft lessors to be able to repossess aircraft faster, which is critical in the aviation leasing industry.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 9, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins is proud to announce that four litigation cases handled by the firm have been selected among the nine Distinguished Judgment Awards granted by Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) for the period from October 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025. This recognition highlights the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of these cases, which were chosen based on stringent criteria including new legal issues, high evidentiary volume, and intricate legal arguments. Among these four cases, one was singled out as the “Most Distinguished Judgment” – the landmark trademark squatting case involving the trademark rights of our client, Thailand’s largest state-owned energy conglomerate, and its subsidiary. In this case, the defendants had filed 52 trademark applications mimicking our client’s marks, making it the largest trademark squatting dispute in Thai history. On April 30, 2025, the IP&IT Court ordered the cancellation of multiple infringing trademarks, setting a benchmark for IP enforcement against trademark squatters in Thailand. The other three recognized cases demonstrate Tilleke & Gibbins’ breadth of expertise in IP litigation: Patent infringement and invalidation involving trade secrets misappropriation. Trade dress infringement of a unique packaging. Landmark Luckin Coffee case involving trademark infringement and invalidation. The IP&IT Court handles approximately 200 IP civil litigation cases each year, and our IP litigation team has typically been involved in 25–30% of them, reflecting our dominant role in shaping IP jurisprudence in Thailand.
December 30, 2020
Represented the Thai subsidiary of a major Japanese automaker on a number of claims related to allegedly defective airbags. Through our strong representation, all cases were tactically settled for a nominal amount.