Court grants conditional stay in Motorola v Hytera case to balance enforcement and pending appeal interests.

Citation: [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the case of Motorola Solutions, Inc & Anor v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm), the legal discussion centered on the principles governing a stay of enforcement of a judgment in light of a pending appeal. The case sheds light on the considerations relevant to whether the execution of a judgment should be halted when the judgment itself is being challenged at the appellate level.

Key Facts

The significant factual circumstances of the case involved an application for a stay of enforcement of a judgment awarded to Motorola against Hytera for approximately USD $136.3 million in compensatory damages, as well as additional sums for interest and costs. Hytera sought this stay pending the outcome of an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals against a judgment in the United States for intellectual property infringement claims. While Motorola has been partially successful in obtaining some damages, there remained complications regarding enforcement and payment from Hytera due to financial constraints and looming legal uncertainties due to the pending appeal.

Several legal principles were evaluated and applied by MR JUSTICE JACOBS in reaching a decision on the stay of enforcement. These can be categorized as follows:

  1. Special Circumstances and Inexpediency (CPR 83.7(4)(a)): The judge considered the “special circumstances” which render the enforcement of a judgment inexpedient, in this case, primarily focusing on the imminent appeal decision in the US and Hytera’s current and future ability to satisfy the judgment.

  2. Analogy with CPR 52.16 Principle from Hammond Suddard: The judge decided to apply, by analogy, principles governing the grant of a stay under CPR 52.16 wherein the essential question is whether there is a risk of injustice to one or both parties if a stay is granted or refused.

  3. Risk to Business Viability: The question of whether enforcement would effectively compel Hytera to irreversibly dismantle its ongoing business was deemed pertinent and was indeed a significant factor in conducting the balancing exercise.

  4. Imminence of Appellate Decision: The unusual feature that the appeal had already been argued, with a judgment reasonably expected soon, was a substantial factor influencing the discretion exercised.

  5. Financial Condition and Asset Mobilization of Hytera: Assessing Hytera’s financial evidence submitted through witness statements, the judge concluded that liquid assets or other cash reserves were unavailable in a manner that could satisfy the judgment without disrupting its business operations.


Upon applying the relevant legal principles, the court granted a conditional stay. The resulting order reflected a careful balance between preventing possible irreversible harm to Hytera’s business and the reasonable prospect of Motorola securing at least some part of their judgment. The condition placed was for Hytera to pay US$25 million into court within two months to maintain the stay; otherwise, the stay would be lifted, leaving the possibility of a brief extension to facilitate the payment.


The case highlights the intricate balance that courts must maintain when confronted with an application for a stay of enforcement of a judgment. MR JUSTICE JACOBS applied existing principles analogously to the novel context of foreign appeals, recognized the need to preserve business continuity against the backdrop of a pending appellate decision, and tailored a conditional stay that sought to balance the interests of both parties. This outcome demonstrates the court’s flexibility in ensuring justice while accounting for practical business considerations and procedural imminence. Legal professionals should take note of this decision as it underscores the judicial consideration given to the interplay between the enforceability of judgments and the uncertainty of pending appeals.

Related Summaries