Case Overview:
The case involved a dispute over the interim return of an aircraft under Rule 10-1(4) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. Viking Air Limited (the respondent) sought the aircraft’s return from Cascade Aerospace Inc. (the appellant), alleging wrongful retention.

Key Issues:

• Replevin Test: Whether the court needed evidence of a risk of asset disposition to grant a replevin order under Rule 10-1(4).

• Irreparable Harm: Whether the judge erred in concluding that Viking demonstrated irreparable harm.

• Interlocutory Injunction Standard: Whether the applicable standard was a "serious issue to be tried" or a "strong prima facie case."

Legal Arguments:

• Viking argued it had the better right to possession and did not need to prove a risk of disposition.

• Cascade contended that a risk of disposition was necessary, along with evidence of irreparable harm. Cascade also asserted a lien over the aircraft to secure damages under the contract.

Judgment:
The Court of Appeal dismissed Cascade’s appeal, ruling that:

• A risk of disposition was not a standalone requirement for replevin.

• Viking established irreparable harm due to reputational risks and contractual obligations.

• The correct standard for a replevin order in this case was a "strong prima facie case."

Costs and Award:
The aircraft was returned to Viking, contingent upon posting security for Cascade’s damages claim (US $1,845,000). Costs were awarded in Viking’s favor. Financial terms were not specified.