In aviation, a commercial dispute rarely stays confined to the two parties because suppliers, operators, brokers, banks, regulators, and trade associations form a closely connected international network. A damaging allegation can move through that network swiftly, surface in search results for years, and significantly influence how the business is perceived by suppliers, creditors and clients.
The experience of Twinstar Aviation, its directors Richard Kubo and Raphael Sebastian Wamwati, and Brent Global Limited shows how quickly this can happen. An online user-generated “blacklist” is not a court judgment or regulatory decision, but left unchallenged, it can act as a commercial sanction by the way in which people carry out their own online ‘due diligence.’ A blacklisting site can allow the subjective complaints of one party, however serious, to be published to the world at large, when otherwise and hitherto they would simply have reflected a private commercial disagreement, usually resolved by a court of law.
The Twinstar case shows the potential value of decisive legal action. When written requests failed to secure removal of the Blacklist.aero article High Court proceedings were issued which led to UK access to the blacklist being blocked. However, the page remained available in Kenya and other key aviation markets, so its “removal” was not initially worldwide.
How Twinstar Aviation Landed on the Blacklist Aero Page
A dispute arose when Dubai-based Tahseen Aviation Services (TAS) sought to recover from Brent Global Limited, a US$60,000 debt owed by the liquidated Kenyan company Multiple Solutions Limited (MSL) to TAS. Twinstar’s directors denied acquiring MSL or assuming its debts, explaining that Brent Global Limited, had purchased only a Boeing 737-200-aircraft from MSL. Despite this Twinstar paid TAS US$4,000 under a goodwill arrangement linked to anticipated future business. When that business did not materialise, there were no profits from which to pay the proposed balance.
What is Blacklist.aero?
Blacklist.aero presents itself as the “Global Aviation Register of Defaulter Companies”. Its purpose is to allow market participants to post and view information about aviation businesses said to have failed to meet their obligations, and to give the aviation community an extrajudicial tool to influence companies accused of non-payment.
There are three account levels:
- A free user may view restricted case information
- Standard plan users may view full case information
- Premium plan users may open a case and view all available information
The terms state that Premium users pay service fees, and that a user requesting deletion of its case must pay a service fee calculated as a percentage of the claim amount.
The distinction between register entries and website articles became central to the Twinstar dispute. On 17 March 2026, Blacklist.aero said its administrators had to remove resolved cases from the register within a specified period of notification, but its editors had no equivalent duty to delete published articles and did not intend to do so. This would mean, potentially, that extremely adverse allegations to any business would remain in the ether, even though the complaint was resolved, exaggerated or misconceived. In some cases, it may also have been legitimate, but as the internet preserves in aspic the wrongs that men do unto each other, it can also become difficult to “move on” from disputes.
This blacklist model creates a serious imbalance therefore for aviation companies. A complaint may be publicised and remain searchable even after the underlying dispute is effectively resolved. Marking it “resolved” may not offset the damage caused by the headline, allegations, photographs or calls to avoid the named parties. There is nowhere to hide, even if wrongs are swiftly righted.
Blacklist.aero is entitled to present its position and may rely on any legal defences available to it as a publisher.
The concern raised by the Twinstar case is not that aviation debts should be hidden. It is whether disputed allegations should be transformed and elevated into lasting reputational penalties without the factual safeguards, evidential testing and remedies associated with a court process. Court processes have varying tiers of public prominence and disclosure. Satisfied judgment debts are marked as satisfied and, in most cases, fall off the register after six years. Bankrupts are normally discharged after a fixed period.
What Happened After TAS Submitted a Case to Blacklist Aero
Twinstar’s position is that TAS submitted a case to Blacklist.aero notwithstanding correspondence in which TAS acknowledged / the correspondence recorded that MSL owed the original debt and that no document had been produced linking MSL to Brent Global. Twinstar’s lawyers later produced Kenyan company records confirming that MSL, Brent Global and Twinstar Aviation were separate entities, with different registration histories, directors and shareholders.
Despite those distinctions, Blacklist.aero communicated with third parties about the alleged debt:
- October 2023: email to an aviation-sector customer urging it not to cooperate with Brent Global until the US$60,000 was repaid.
- March 2025: Blacklist.aero contacted the Kenya Association of Air Operators and the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority, asking them to investigate Twinstar, Brent-related businesses and the executives concerned.
- April 2025: notification to the National Business Aviation Association, raising the possibility of a review of Twinstar’s membership.
The dispute had therefore moved beyond creditor and alleged debtor, as customers, regulators, and industry associations had been brought into it. The blacklist model presupposes that someone with a debt or complaint will prefer informal channels and the ‘oxygen of publicity’. It is in effect a private system of justice, in which decisions on potentially complex legal and factual matters rest with those who run the site.
The Reputational Campaign
On 23 April 2025, Blacklist.aero published an accompanying article which, in its headline and text, alleged serious wrongdoing by Twinstar Aviation, Brent Global, Mr Kubo and Mr Wamwati, and by Kenyan aviation bodies and figures. It urged the aviation community not to cooperate with Twinstar or Brent Global until the alleged debt was paid. Following the earlier emails, a second page of adverse allegations, readily picked up by search engines, had the effect of increasing pressure on Twinstar to pay.
Twinstar, its directors and the other affected parties denied the allegations. They said the article wrongly portrayed separate companies as a renamed entity created to avoid debt, misrepresented the conditional goodwill arrangement and made unfounded claims of dishonesty and corruption.
The reputational damage extended beyond the blacklist website. The article was promoted on LinkedIn and shared through aviation groups, while a prospective customer also raised concerns about its contents. This shows how digital reputational harm spreads in aviation: the original page gives an allegation permanence and prominence; search engines make it easy to find, and repeated sharing across professional networks can lend it credibility.
After TAS received payments, the article was marked “resolved” but remained online. Twinstar argued that this did not correct the allegations, as readers could still see the accusatory headline and narrative without knowing what had been resolved or whether the claims had been withdrawn. And one difficulty of perception was that whilst Twinstar were making a payment at a much lower level than publicly claimed, the online record did not indicate what was agreed, resolved, or disputed (the complaint and satellite allegations about the business were vehemently disputed).
The correspondence highlighted the difference between closing a registry case and removing an article. Blacklist.aero said these functions were separate and its editors were not required to delete published content. For a company protecting its reputation, the two remedies were therefore not equivalent. Retaining ‘resolved’ cases may suit such a platform commercially, since it makes the service appear capable of resolving more disputes. That is a comment on the incentives built into the model, given that its terms provide for fees on deletion, rather than on anyone’s motive in this case. However, as the model and system cannot replicate the sophisticated decision-making of a court of justice, it remains likely that the determinations it produces lead to further disputes about reputation and what is fair to record and report, and what is accurate or inaccurate.
The Legal Escalation
In March 2026, English solicitors for Twinstar Aviation, Mr Kubo and Mr Wamwati sent a letter of claim under the relevant Pre-Action Protocol in the UK. It identified the publication, alleged defamatory meanings and factual inaccuracies, outlined the resulting harm and sought removal and other remedies. As Twinstar was an international aviation business, like many, it had UK connections through the business which meant it had an international reputation which would invoke the UK jurisdiction.
Blacklist.aero rejected the complaint. It said Twinstar had been given an opportunity to respond, linked the payments to the underlying debt, and defended the distinction between its registry and editorial content. It refused to delete the article and warned that further pressure could prompt another publication.
Twinstar’s solicitors escalated the matter and, on 23 April 2026, sent Blacklist.aero the sealed claim form confirming that proceedings had been issued.
Geography changed the Meaning of Removal
After UK High Court proceedings were issued, Blacklist.aero removed UK access to the article without admitting liability. However, it remained available elsewhere, making the initial remedy territorial rather than global. The article remained accessible in Kenya, the United States, the UAE, and other key markets. However, its removal in the UK helped Twinstar reassure customers that the allegations lacked credibility.
For an international aviation business, a UK-only block may be valuable but insufficient, as the greatest harm may arise where it operates or where its customers, banks and regulators are based. Lawyers and technical specialists should therefore check access in each key market and pursue the appropriate remedies, including deletion, geographic blocking, search delisting, removal of social posts, correction, or apology. Duplicate legal actions can, of course, be conducted in all jurisdictions where harm is accruing.
Worldwide deletion may be hard to achieve because legal jurisdiction is territorial and the internet is not. However, credibility is dashed, where perceptions matter. In an ‘air war’ such as over aviation business reputations, there are things that can be done to fight back. European courts have in some cases restricted blacklists targeting regulated professionals. Critics see such lists as a form of unregulated private justice.
What Aviation Executives Should Learn From Twinstar’s Experience
- Preserve evidence: Save the article, URL, date, images, author details, legal notices, and search results across key jurisdictions. Retain messages showing circulation among customers, regulators, and trade bodies.
- Document the transaction: Identify the parties, alleged debtor, guarantees, goodwill terms, payments, and corporate relationships. Registry records may disprove links between separate entities.
- Record serious harm: Keep evidence of lost customers or tenders, banking decisions, compliance queries, and onward sharing. Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must show serious harm to reputation. For a body that trades for profit, that means serious financial loss or its likelihood (s.1(2)).
- Coordinate the response: Consider defamation, malicious falsehood, data protection, harassment, search delisting, and intermediary notices. Twinstar’s position changed only after proceedings were issued.
The Broader Aviation Issue
The aviation industry needs reliable warnings about fraud, default, and counterparty risk. However, a private blacklist can cause serious reputational harm before liability is established. By contacting customers and trade bodies, naming individuals and related companies, and retaining articles after cases are resolved, a platform moves beyond acting as a passive register.
Twinstar Aviation’s experience shows both the power of online allegations and the value of decisive legal action. After proceedings were issued, UK access to the article was removed, although its continued availability abroad highlighted the internet’s jurisdictional limits. An online blacklist need not have the final word. Each case turns on its own facts.
Twinstar Aviation were represented by Nath Solicitors based in Mayfair London. If you are facing any defamation, reputational or legal business issues Nath Solicitors is here to support you. With over 30 years of expertise, we specialise in providing swift, expert resolution to distressing situations. Our experienced team of solicitors has a meticulous eye for detail, ensuring that every aspect of your case is thoroughly examined and presented.
Contact our highly experienced team at Nath Solicitors today to discuss your case and explore your options. Call us on 020 3983 8278 or reach out to us online.