Motorola Solutions, Inc & Anor v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Ors

A pending appeal in a foreign jurisdiction does not, by itself, constitute the special circumstances making enforcement inexpedient under CPR 83.7(4)(a). The court should apply, by analogy, the principles governing a stay pending an appeal in England. The central question is whether refusing or granting a stay creates a risk of injustice, assessed through a balancing exercise. Relevant considerations include the risk of stifling the appeal, the enforceability and recoverability of any payment, the judgment debtor’s practical ability to pay, and whether enforcement would require irreversible dismantling of a viable business. A stay may be granted on conditions, including payment of a substantial sum into court.

Hytera applied for a stay of enforcement of an English judgment entered in favour of Motorola for US$136.3 million in compensatory copyright damages arising from United States proceedings. The underlying US judgment was subject to an appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which had been argued and awaited judgment.

Hytera contended that immediate enforcement would require it to dismantle its business, despite the foreign appeal being reasonably imminent. Motorola relied on Hytera’s assets, profitability and access to financing, and opposed a stay. The central issues were whether the pending foreign appeal and Hytera’s financial position constituted special circumstances under CPR 83.7(4)(a), and whether any stay should be conditional.

1. Application substantially granted. Enforcement was stayed for two months and thereafter subject to payment of US$25 million into court. If payment was not made by 19 March 2024, the stay would be lifted, subject to any short extension application.
2. The existence of a pending foreign appeal was not, without more, a special circumstance making enforcement inexpedient under CPR 83.7(4)(a). Such appeals occur frequently, and payment could ordinarily be made and returned if the appeal succeeded.
3. The court followed the approach in David Tyler Moss and others v Brian Martin and anr, applying by analogy the principles governing a stay pending an English appeal. The starting point was that a successful claimant should not ordinarily be prevented from enforcing merely because an appeal was pending. Solid grounds and a balancing exercise were required.
4. The balancing exercise concerned the risk of injustice to either party. Relevant matters included whether the appeal would be stifled, whether the judgment creditor could enforce if a stay were granted, whether money paid could be recovered if the appeal succeeded, and any other case-specific factor. Here, the appeal had already been argued, raised substantial issues and was reasonably imminent.
5. On the evidence, Hytera lacked sufficient readily available cash or borrowing capacity to satisfy the judgment without effectively dismantling its business. Existing lending covenants and cross-default provisions materially constrained the proposed financing. It was inappropriate to conduct a retrospective inquiry into whether Hytera should previously have managed its business differently.
6. Although a full stay was justified, Hytera could realistically raise some money without significant dismantling of its business. A conditional payment into court was therefore appropriate. The condition balanced Motorola’s enforcement interests against the risk of irreversible disruption to Hytera before the foreign appeal was decided.

The judgment records that earlier English proceedings had resulted in decisions including [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm) and an appellate decision at [2021] EWCA Civ 11. Those proceedings were distinct from the present claim. The present application concerned enforcement of the November 2023 English judgment and was decided at first instance.