In a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in Motorola Solutions, Inc. & Anor v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1667, significant clarifications were made regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments in England and Wales, especially when it comes to “multiple damages.” The judgment carries profound implications for companies looking to enforce foreign judgments within the UK legal system.
The Background
The case stemmed from Motorola's legal battle with Hytera, which originated in the United States. Motorola had accused Hytera of intellectual property theft, trade secret misappropriation, and copyright infringement. In 2021, a US court ruled in favor of Motorola, awarding compensatory damages under the Copyright Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and punitive damages (which were double the compensatory amount under the DTSA). Motorola also received various other awards related to legal fees and interest.
The Legal Tangle Across Borders
In April 2022, Motorola sought to enforce this US judgment in England. Initially, the focus was not on the punitive damages, but by 2023, Motorola amended its claim to include the DTSA compensatory damages. Meanwhile, Hytera had already appealed the original US judgment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Despite this, Motorola managed to secure a summary judgment from the English High Court to enforce the compensatory elements related to copyright damages. However, Hytera requested a stay of the judgment pending the outcome of the US appeal. This request was granted in January 2024, but with a catch: Hytera had to deposit a $25 million security to the court.
A Shifting Legal Landscape
On July 2, 2024, the US Court of Appeals reversed the copyright damages portion of the ruling, remanding the case back to a lower court to reassess the damages owed to Motorola. In response, Hytera applied to the English High Court to revoke or indefinitely stay the original English Judgment and return the $25 million security. By mid-July, Motorola's remaining claims for interest, legal fees, and disbursements had not yet gone to trial, and a pivotal decision was on the horizon.
In the first trial stage in England (November 2024), the Court ruled that the entire DTSA damages—including compensatory and punitive elements—were unenforceable due to the stipulations of the Protection of Trading Interests Act (PTIA). Motorola, naturally, appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal's Ruling
In January 2025, the Court of Appeal addressed two critical issues that had emerged in the case. First, the Court considered whether the entire judgment, including the compensatory damages and ancillary costs, should be unenforceable in England if the damages were awarded as “multiple damages,” a concept under PTIA.
The Court concluded that section 5 of PTIA prohibits the enforcement of any foreign judgment that contains “multiple damages,” even if part of the damages are compensatory. In other words, if a judgment includes a punitive multiplier (such as double or triple the compensatory amount), the entire judgment—compensatory and punitive parts alike—becomes unenforceable in England. The Court’s decision underscores the principle that PTIA aims to prevent the enforcement of punitive damages in the UK.
The Path to the Second Appeal
The second issue revolved around the proper legal process to revoke an English judgment when the underlying foreign judgment is overturned on appeal. The deputy judge initially revoked the English Judgment under CPR 3.1(7), but the Court of Appeal found this approach was incorrect. The proper procedure, the Court ruled, should have been to apply CPR 40.8A, which governs the stay or modification of judgments based on new developments in foreign proceedings.
This technical distinction was crucial, as it reaffirmed the Court's commitment to providing flexibility for ongoing foreign cases, where final outcomes are still pending. The Court of Appeal rejected the idea of revoking the judgment entirely at this interim stage. Instead, it chose to grant a stay, ordering that Hytera's $20 million security remain in place while the US court reassessed the damages owed to Motorola.
Practical Implications
The decision is a powerful reminder to international litigants that enforcing foreign judgments in the UK is not straightforward, especially when “multiple damages” are involved. The judgment offers key takeaways for businesses and legal practitioners engaged in multi-jurisdictional disputes:
-
Multiple Damages: If a foreign judgment includes a punitive element, it is entirely unenforceable in England. Companies looking to secure enforcement in the UK must be mindful of the structure of foreign judgments.
-
Revocation Process: When a foreign judgment is overturned on appeal, any application to revoke an English judgment must follow the specific route set out in CPR 40.8A, rather than CPR 3.1(7), which is generally used for case management purposes.
-
Stays vs. Revocation: The Court of Appeal emphasized that a stay of judgment is often the preferred approach, especially when foreign proceedings are still ongoing and the final outcome remains uncertain.
Conclusion
This judgment by the Court of Appeal offers significant guidance on the complex landscape of cross-border enforcement of foreign judgments. For those seeking to enforce or resist enforcement of foreign judgments in England and Wales, the ruling underscores the importance of carefully considering the potential pitfalls of "multiple damages" and the procedural nuances of the English legal system.
The case serves as a valuable learning experience for international litigants navigating the intricacies of enforcing foreign judgments and the challenges of managing multi-jurisdictional litigation.