Trayport Limited v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors

Trayport Limited v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors

Permission to serve out is set aside for most claims due to failure to meet the merits test, inadequate pleading, lack of evidence of acts within the UK, and material non-disclosure. However, permission is re-granted for (1) the NDA claim against Exxeta, (2) breach of equitable duties of confidence by the corporate Defendants, and (3) the Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star, as these claims meet the merits test and England is the appropriate forum for them. The Copying Case, most statutory IP claims, and claims against Mr Schmid fail the merits test. Material non-disclosure occurred but is remedied by costs and re-granting permission for the surviving claims.

Parties
Claimant: Trayport Limited; First Defendant: E-Star Trading GmbH; Second Defendant: Exxeta AG; Third Defendant: Karsten Schmid; Fourth Defendant: Andreas Kamper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 June 2026
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (service Out of Jurisdiction) / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Order for Service Out
Outcome
Permission to serve out set aside for most claims; permission re-granted for NDA claim against Exxeta, breach of confidence by corporate Defendants, and Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star; costs to Claimant on indemnity basis for non-disclosure; all other applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Database Rights, Breach of Confidence, Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction and Service Out, Forum Non Conveniens, Full and Frank Disclosure, Trade Mark Infringement, Vicarious Liability, Inducing Breach of Contract
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Employment Law Copyright Infringement Database Rights Breach of Confidence Trade Secrets +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trayport Limited

Claimant

E-Star Trading GmbH

First Defendant

Exxeta AG

Second Defendant

Karsten Schmid

Third Defendant

Andreas Kamper

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (service Out of Jurisdiction) / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Order for Service Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for service out of the jurisdiction should be set aside for failure to meet the merits test, lack of jurisdictional gateway, forum non conveniens, or lack of full and frank disclosure; Whether the pleaded claims (copyright, database rights, breach of NDA, breach of confidence, trade mark infringement, vicarious liability, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract) meet the threshold for service out; Whether England is the appropriate forum for the dispute; Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant on the without notice application.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to serve out is set aside for most claims due to failure to meet the merits test, inadequate pleading, lack of evidence of acts within the UK, and material non-disclosure. However, permission is re-granted for (1) the NDA claim against Exxeta, (2) breach of equitable duties of confidence by the corporate Defendants, and (3) the Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star, as these claims meet the merits test and England is the appropriate forum for them. The Copying Case, most statutory IP claims, and claims against Mr Schmid fail the merits test. Material non-disclosure occurred but is remedied by costs and re-granting permission for the surviving claims.

Court Disposition

Permission to serve out set aside for most claims; permission re-granted for NDA claim against Exxeta, breach of confidence by corporate Defendants, and Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star; costs to Claimant on indemnity basis for non-disclosure; all other applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to serve out set aside except for NDA claim against Exxeta, breach of confidence by corporate Defendants, and Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star.
  • Permission to serve out re-granted for those surviving claims.