The decision in Motorola Solutions & Anr v Hytera Communications & Ors [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm) has set down, "slightly surprisingly"[1] for the first time, the powers of the English court to set aside an English judgment made to enforce a foreign judgment if the latter is subsequently rendered invalid through foreign appeal processes.
The key ruling concerns the scope of CPR rule 3.1(7) which states that a power of the court under the CPR to make an order includes the power to vary or revoke the order. The judgment confirms that while there are well-established restrictions on the use of this provision in setting aside final orders, the rule nevertheless includes the power to set aside a final order in exceptional circumstances, such as when it is premised upon a foreign judgment which has been undermined by an appeal in that foreign jurisdiction.
The analysis carried out by Sean O'Sullivan KC is of particular interest and even perhaps (humbly, in the author's opinion) outshines the significant ruling made in respect of CPR r 3.1(7). The Deputy Judge identifies his "instinctive reaction"[2] very early on in the judgment and then clearly and consistently confirms it by "pulling the threads together"[3] through various precedents and principles of English law.
Factual Background
The decision arose out of the application of the first defendant ("Hytera") to set aside or permanently stay a summary judgment of Cockerill J of 3 November 2023 in the sum of US$136.3 million (the "English Summary Judgment"). The English Summary Judgment was made to enforce part of a foreign judgment of the Illinois District Court in the USA by which the Claimants ("Motorola") were awarded that sum to be paid by Hytera in damages under the US Copyright Act 1976 (the "Illinois Judgment"). Hytera obtained a stay on the execution of the English Summary Judgment by depositing a sum of US$25 million into court pending the resolution of the appellate proceedings against the Illinois Judgment in the US Appeal Court.
The underlying dispute arose out of a copyright infringement claim made by Motorola against Hytera. The Illinois Judgment found that Hytera, a Chinese technology company, was liable for theft of intellectual property, trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement with respect to its US competitor, Motorola's, two-way radio equipment and related technology. While there remained no dispute about this underlying misconduct, there presently remain ongoing proceedings in the US regarding the quantum. Specifically, on 2 July 2024, the US Appeal Court vacated the Illinois Judgment for copyright damages of US$136.3 million and remitted the claim back to the Illinois District Court to reassess the quantum.
The result of the US Appeal Court decision was that the very basis of the English Summary Judgment, i.e. the Illinois Judgment, was no longer valid. This prompted Hytera to file the present application.
While not specifically relevant to the finding in this decision, the Judge noted that the impact of the US appeal proceedings was that the original damages award of approximately US$140 million could be drastically reduced in Hytera's favour to as little as US$14.6 million.
Question of Law in Issue
The Judge noted that the essential point of principle arising out of Hytera's application was "what should happen to an English judgment which is premised upon a foreign judgment if the foreign court subsequently allows the judgment debtor’s appeal."[4]
Decision
The court allowed Hytera's application to set aside the English Summary Judgment and directed the release of the security of US$25 million deposited towards the stay of its execution.
The court confirmed that a successful appeal in relation to a foreign judgment would be relevant to the enforcement of that foreign judgment in England, even if an English judgment premised upon that foreign judgment had already been handed down. In doing so the court had regard to the following principles in Moss & Ors v Martin & Anr [2022] EWHC 3258 (Comm):
- The principles which apply to a stay of execution of an English judgment pending a domestic appeal also govern applications for a stay of execution of a foreign judgment pending foreign appeal.
- These principles “fairly and appropriately balance the interests of the parties while respecting the prima facie and forcibility of a judgment debt”.
- A judgment debtor should not be placed in a worse position purely because the underlying judgment is a foreign judgment, rather than an English one, i.e. where a stay would be available pursuant to CPR rule 52.16[5].
- The outcome of foreign appeal processes constitute special circumstances which render it inexpedient to enforce the foreign judgment.
The court identified that there was a gap in the law and, in these circumstances, referred to an Australian decision in Benefits Strategies Inc v Prider [2007] SASC 250 which had facts similar to this case. A summary judgment had been entered on the basis of a foreign judgment, the latter then being declared to be void in the foreign court. The Australian court held that it could vary or set aside a judgment or order at any time if the justice of the case so requires.
The Court recognised a clear need for some procedural mechanism to account for the effect of an appeal on a foreign judgment, which has itself been relied upon to obtain an English judgment. The Judge rejected Motorola's arguments that an appeal would be a satisfactory solution. Instead, the Judge found the solution to this problem in CPR rule 3.1(7).
The Court reviewed English law on the scope of this rule and was satisfied that it was sufficiently broad to include the court's power to set aside a summary judgment despite its nature as a final order in "very specific and limited circumstances" such as the present case.
Key takeaways
Whether or not the ruling in this decision will remain good law will be subject to the determination of appeal proceedings, which are due to be decided by the English Court of Appeal in 2026.
The decision, nevertheless, is of key importance. It identifies tensions caused by the broader, well-established principle in English law that an appeal does not operate as a stay and specifically, that a pending appeal does not prevent a foreign judgment from being “final and conclusive” for the purpose of enforcement at common law.
The decision demonstrates that the English courts are driven to produce just and reasonable outcomes, which is especially relevant to parties engaged in complex and commercial cross-border satellite litigation, who benefit from the predictability offered by such decisions. As for commercial litigators, the judgment offers a number of lessons to be learned, grounded in and inspired by a sound understanding of the foundations of English law and practice.
[1] Paragraph 27
[2] Paragraph 31
[3] Paragraph 48
[4] Paragraph 25
[5] CPR rule 52.16 provides that "Unless — (a) the appeal court or the lower court orders otherwise; or (b) the appeal is from the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, an appeal shall not operate as a stay of any order or decision of the lower court."
Want to hear more from us? 
