Ingosstrakh v Global Aviation Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others

The dispute arose from an aviation insurance policy concluded in October 2012 between Global Aviation entities and Ingosstrakh, a Russian insurer. The policy insured, inter alia, an MD82 aircraft for US$2.5 million. In November 2012, the aircraft suffered severe damage at OR Tambo International Airport when both engines ingested foreign matter, rendering it unable to take off. Global declared the aircraft a constructive total loss and demanded payment of the insured amount. Ingosstrakh refused, disputing that the aircraft constituted a total loss. After earlier motion proceedings were dismissed due to disputes of fact, Global instituted action proceedings. Although Ingosstrakh entered an appearance to defend, it failed to deliver a plea timeously, was placed under bar, and unsuccessfully sought to uplift the bar and challenge service of summons. Global then applied for default judgment, which the High Court refused, while also dismissing Ingosstrakh’s condonation and upliftment applications. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal by Ingosstrakh was dismissed with costs. The cross-appeal by Global was upheld. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order granting default judgment in favour of Global for US$2,500,000, interest from 13 November 2012 at the prescribed rate, and costs of suit.

The case clarifies South African procedural law relating to notices of bar, condonation, and default judgment, reaffirming strict compliance with procedural rules. It is also significant for private international law, confirming that a South African court may assume jurisdiction where a foreign peregrinus defendant submits to jurisdiction and there is a substantive jurisdictional link to the dispute, such as the place of conclusion of the contract.