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

Section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 bars enforcement of the whole amount of a foreign multiple-damages judgment. The bar includes the compensatory multiplicand as well as the punitive multiple. It also extends to interest, fees and costs payable under that judgment where no amount is separately identifiable as referable only to an enforceable claim.

Where a foreign judgment enforced in England is later reversed on appeal, an application by the judgment debtor for a stay or other relief should ordinarily be made under CPR Part 40.8A, not the case-management power in CPR Part 3.1(7). Pending a foreign reassessment, a stay on appropriate terms may be preferable to revoking and repeatedly replacing the English enforcement judgment.

Motorola obtained judgments in Illinois arising from trade-secret misappropriation and copyright infringement. The awards included Copyright Act damages, compensatory and punitive damages under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and interest, attorney fees and costs.

In the first appeal, Motorola challenged Calver J’s ruling that section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 prevented enforcement of the compensatory Defend Trade Secrets Act award and the ancillary awards: [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm).

In the second appeal, the US appellate court had reversed the Copyright Act damages award and remitted it for reassessment. A deputy judge had set aside the English consent judgment enforcing that award under CPR Part 3.1(7): [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm). The issues were the scope of section 5 and the correct English procedural response to the subsequent foreign reversal.

1. The first appeal was dismissed. On the ordinary and unambiguous language of section 5, a judgment for multiple damages is the whole amount produced by applying the multiplier to the sum assessed as compensation. It is not confined to the additional punitive element. Accordingly, section 5(1) prohibited recovery of both the compensatory and punitive elements of the Defend Trade Secrets Act award.

2. Section 6(2) confirmed that construction. It expressly identifies and excepts the compensatory part only for the limited statutory clawback right. No equivalent apportionment appears in section 5. The broader statutory purpose also supported a total enforcement bar: it discourages the pursuit of multiple damages and prevents an English court from assisting, directly or indirectly, in recovery of the penal element.

3. The prohibition on recovering any sum payable under a multiple-damages judgment also caught interest, attorney fees and costs awarded ancillary to the Defend Trade Secrets Act claim. None of those awards had been made on a divisible basis that identified a sum attributable solely to the Copyright Act claim. Motorola’s proposed amendment to claim the compensatory Defend Trade Secrets Act damages was therefore futile.

4. The second appeal was allowed. The deputy judge had used the wrong jurisdictional power. Where a party against whom a final judgment has been given relies on matters occurring afterwards, CPR Part 40.8A is the specific and historically appropriate route for a stay or other relief. CPR Part 3.1(7) should not normally be used to revoke a final order when CPR Part 40.8A applies.

5. The Court of Appeal remade the decision. Although a later foreign reversal can justify relief under CPR Part 40.8A, revocation was premature while the foreign reassessment remained outstanding. The English judgment was stayed, rather than revoked, with US$20 million remaining in court. The parties were given liberty to apply to the Commercial Court after the reassessment or any material change of circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): First appeal dismissed and second appeal allowed in [2025] EWCA Civ 1667.
• High Court, Commercial Court: Calver J held that section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 barred enforcement of the compensatory and punitive Defend Trade Secrets Act damages and the ancillary awards: [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm).
• High Court, Commercial Court: Sean O’Sullivan KC, sitting as a deputy judge, set aside the English enforcement judgment and ordered return of security: [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm). That order was reversed on the second appeal.