High Court Criticizes Excessive Legal Costs in Motorola v Hytera Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the case of Motorola v Hytera has recently been adjudicated by The Hon. Mrs Justice Cockerill. The core of the case concerns the costs arising from amendments to a summary judgment application. This article provides a detailed analysis of the pertinent legal principles addressed in the approved judgment dated 3 November 2023, and their application to the resolution of the cost dispute.

Key Facts

The matter brought before The Hon. Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE pertains to Motorola’s submission of a summary judgment application without prior engagement, which was subsequently met with an unanticipated response, necessitating amendments to the same application. This led to significant legal costs due to the involvement of senior counsel and extensive hours spent on document preparation.

Thomas K Sprange KC and Gayatri Sarathy, instructed by King & Spalding, represented the claimant, and the hearing unfolded on 3rd November 2023. The judgment reflects a critical stance on the manner in which the proceedings were handled, particularly the precipitous initiation of a summary judgment application and the subsequent inflated response that prompted the need for amendments.

Costs and Proportionality

The central legal principle at stake relates to the assessment of costs incurred due to litigative actions. As the court scrutinizes the necessity and proportionality of costs claimed, Justice Cockerill applies stern criticism towards the inflated legal expenses, echoing the tenet that costs should be commensurate with the complexity and significance of the matter at hand.

Role of Counsel and Hourly Rates

Another pivotal point of law concerns the engagement of senior counsel and the application of hourly rates that exceeded the Guideline rate. The judgment implicitly endorses the principle that the appointment of senior counsel and the rates charged should reflect the demands of the case, suggesting that leading counsel’s involvement at elevated rates was unwarranted in this instance.

Awarding of Costs

The legal basis for awarding costs is also considered. While the court has broad discretion in awarding costs, the judgment follows the practice of awarding costs on the basis that they should reflect the work reasonably required for the case, applying judicial criticism where the costs are deemed excessive or unnecessary.


Upon careful consideration, The Hon. Mrs Justice Cockerill awarded a significantly reduced figure of £5,000 for the costs, a sum deemed commensurate with the work that should have reasonably been necessary. The court’s judgment serves as a chastisement for what it perceived as an over-complicated and costly response to the summary judgment application, advocating for a more simplified and cost-effective approach to litigation.


The judgment of The Hon. Mrs Justice Cockerill in Motorola v Hytera brings to the forefront the judiciary’s expectations for proportionality and reasonableness in legal costs. The case serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals, emphasizing the importance of temperance and strategic forethought in the initiation of and response to legal actions. While advocating for rigorous defense, the judgment illustrates a clear preference for cost-effective litigation that avoids unnecessary escalation, aligning with wider judicial efforts to streamline legal proceedings and curb excessive expenditure.

Related Summaries