MICHAEL ALEXANDER TRZECIESKI AND ANOTHER v. KAI GRUENENWALD

MICHAEL ALEXANDER TRZECIESKI AND ANOTHER v. KAI GRUENENWALD

The court refused the stay because the plaintiffs' claim is based on the LoI, which is a separate legally binding instrument that does not contain an arbitration clause and is not an amendment or exhibit of the MoU; the intent to arbitrate could not be inferred into the LoI.

Citation
MICHAEL ALEXANDER TRZECIESKI AND ANOTHER v. KAI GRUENENWALD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MICHAEL ALEXANDER TRZECIESKI; 2nd Plaintiff: JET-BLACK LIMITED; 1st Defendant: KAI GRUENENWALD; 2nd Defendant: LOEWIE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2011
Case Number
HCA910/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil: Breach of Contract / Intellectual Property / Confidentiality / Interlocutory Application for Stay to Arbitration; Decision on Application
Outcome
1st Defendant's application for stay dismissed; 14 day extension granted to file and serve defence; costs order nisi made for half of the costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Stay for Arbitration, Arbitration Clause Interpretation, Non Disclosure Agreement, Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Understanding, Breach of Contract, Account of Profits, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Arbitration Intellectual Property Confidentiality Civil Procedure Equity Stay for Arbitration Arbitration Clause Interpretation +6 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MICHAEL ALEXANDER TRZECIESKI

1st Plaintiff

JET-BLACK LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

KAI GRUENENWALD

1st Defendant

LOEWIE LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Breach of Contract / Intellectual Property / Confidentiality / Interlocutory Application for Stay to Arbitration; Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is subject to arbitration clause in the MoU
  2. 2 Whether the LoI is an amendment/exhibit of the MoU and therefore bound by its arbitration clause
  3. 3 Whether the parties intended arbitration to apply to the LoI

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the stay because the plaintiffs' claim is based on the LoI, which is a separate legally binding instrument that does not contain an arbitration clause and is not an amendment or exhibit of the MoU; the intent to arbitrate could not be inferred into the LoI.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant's application for stay dismissed; 14 day extension granted to file and serve defence; costs order nisi made for half of the costs of the application.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant's application for stay dismissed.
  • 1st Defendant granted 14 days to file and serve his defence from date of order.