In a pivotal ruling in the case Motorola Solutions, Inc & Anor v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1667, the Court of Appeal delivered crucial guidance on the enforcement of foreign judgments in England and Wales. The case dealt with the complexities surrounding "multiple damages"—a term referring to judgments that combine compensatory and punitive elements, often calculated by applying a multiplier to the compensatory sum. The court ruled on two major points that will have far-reaching consequences for future cross-border enforcement:
-
The Enforcement of Multiple Damages: Under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (PTIA), the Court decided that if a foreign judgment includes multiple damages, the entire judgment—both the compensatory and punitive elements—becomes unenforceable in England, not just the punitive part. This decision is rooted in Section 5 of the PTIA.
-
Relief from an English Judgment Following the Overturning of a Foreign Judgment: The Court ruled that when an English judgment enforces a foreign judgment that has been overturned on appeal, the proper procedure to seek relief is through CPR 40.8A, not CPR 3.1(7). The Court also found that a stay of the English judgment was more appropriate than revocation when the foreign proceedings were still ongoing.
Case Background: Motorola vs. Hytera
Motorola, alleging that Hytera had engaged in intellectual property theft, misappropriated trade secrets, and infringed on copyrights, brought a case against the company in the United States. In 2021, Motorola obtained a judgment (the "US Judgment") that included both compensatory damages under the Copyright Act and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), alongside punitive damages under the DTSA, which were double the compensatory amount. In addition, Motorola was awarded interest, legal fees, and other costs.
However, the dispute did not stop in the U.S. In April 2022, Motorola initiated proceedings in the English Commercial Court to enforce the US Judgment. Initially, Motorola sought to enforce only the compensatory and punitive damages under the Copyright Act but later amended its claim to include the DTSA compensatory damages. Meanwhile, Hytera appealed the US Judgment to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (USCA), which added another layer of complexity.
In 2023, Motorola succeeded in obtaining a summary judgment from the English High Court, enforcing the Copyright Damages portion of the US Judgment. However, while Hytera consented to the summary judgment, it requested a stay of the English Judgment pending the US appeal, which was granted in January 2024 on the condition that Hytera paid $25 million as security.
Turning Points and Legal Implications
On July 2, 2024, the USCA reversed the Copyright Damages award and ordered that the case be sent back to a lower US Court for further reassessment. In light of this, Hytera applied to the English High Court on July 15, 2024, to set aside the English Judgment and reclaim the $25 million security.
In November 2024, the trial regarding the rest of Motorola’s claims, particularly the enforcement of interest, legal fees, and disbursements, took place in the English courts. However, the DTSA compensatory damages were not pursued to trial. The Court ruled that Section 5 of PTIA barred the enforcement of all DTSA-related awards—compensatory and punitive—as well as ancillary awards related to interest and legal fees.
Motorola appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, marking the beginning of a legal journey that would clarify key principles of cross-border judgment enforcement.
The Court of Appeal's Ruling
In January 2025, the Court of Appeal issued its decision. The Court's judgment focused on interpreting Section 5 of PTIA, which prohibits the enforcement of judgments involving "multiple damages." The core question was whether this prohibition applied only to the punitive element or also to the compensatory part of such judgments. The Court of Appeal concluded that the prohibition applies to the entire judgment, including compensatory damages and any ancillary awards such as interest or legal fees.
The Court's reasoning emphasized that the language of Section 5 was "clear and unambiguous," and this interpretation was consistent with the purpose of PTIA. By banning the enforcement of both compensatory and punitive damages, the law discourages claimants from seeking multiple damages in foreign courts and ensures that English courts do not enforce penalties disguised as part of a foreign judgment.
The Second Appeal: Correct Procedures for Revoking English Judgments
The Second Appeal focused on the procedure for revoking an English judgment when the foreign judgment upon which it was based is overturned on appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled that the decision to revoke the English Judgment should have been made under CPR 40.8A, which allows for a stay or other relief in light of developments since the judgment was made. This provision is distinct from CPR 3.1(7), which deals with case management and is rarely used to revoke a final order. The Court explained that CPR 40.8A provides a more appropriate framework for handling such cases, where the foreign judgment is in flux.
Rather than revoking the judgment, the Court of Appeal opted to stay the English Judgment and maintain the $20 million security in court. This decision reflects a preference for interim solutions rather than constant adjustments to final judgments while the foreign proceedings remain uncertain.
Key Takeaways for Future Enforcement Cases
For businesses or individuals seeking to enforce foreign judgments in England and Wales, it is crucial to understand that judgments containing "multiple damages"—including both punitive and compensatory elements—will not be enforceable. This understanding can significantly affect litigation strategy in foreign courts and the way damages are pursued in cross-border disputes.
Additionally, the Court’s emphasis on CPR 40.8A underscores the importance of following the correct procedural path when dealing with overturned foreign judgments. A stay is often the preferred remedy, especially when the foreign proceedings remain ongoing and the final outcome is still uncertain.