US multiple damages judgments found unenforceable in England under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Motorola Solutions v Hytera, handed down on 19 December 2025, addresses an important question concerning the enforcement of foreign, particularly US, judgments in England on which there had been conflicting authority.

The court held that the prohibition in section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (PTIA) which precludes enforcement of a foreign "judgment for multiple damages", prohibited the enforcement of the compensatory element of the damages award and not just the multiple element.

The decision is significant for judgment creditors who have the benefit of a judgment awarding multiple damages. Litigants in US courts where enforcement in England is likely to be necessary will now have reason to consider, at an early stage, whether it makes sense to seek multiple damages at all.

US-China IP dispute

Motorola Solutions based in the US and Hytera in China are competitors. In 2017, Motorola Solutions commenced proceedings against Hytera in Illinois, US relating to the infringement of intellectual property rights.

A US statute, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), allows for the award of punitive or exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory damages if breaches are wilful and malicious. Following a jury trial in 2021, the Illinois court awarded Motorola Solutions compensatory damages of US$136.3 million under the US Copyright Act, compensatory damages of US$135.8 million under the DTSA; and punitive damages under the DTSA of US$271.6 million – being double the DTSA compensatory damages.

In April 2022, Motorola Solutions commenced proceedings in the English Commercial Court to enforce the Illinois judgments. Mr Justice Cockerill gave summary judgment in November 2023 for US$136.3 million, the copyright damages, plus interest. In January 2024, Mr Justice Jacobs stayed that English judgment pending the outcome of Motorola Solutions' appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (USCA), on condition that Hytera paid US$25 million into court.

The USCA judgment was handed down on 2 July 2024. It reversed the award of copyright damages in two respects and remanded the case for further proceedings, with the maximum damages likely to be awarded on reassessment being approximately US$14.67 million plus interest. 

Following the USCA judgment, Hytera applied to the Commercial Court for an order to revoke or permanently stay the English judgment and for the return of the US$25 million held in court, on the basis that the foundation for the judgment had entirely fallen away. This application came before the court in January 2025. The deputy judge granted the application, as well as permission to appeal and stayed the return of the security pending appeal, while reducing the amount of security required to $20 million. 

Enforcement of judgment for multiple damages

Section 5 PTIA provides: "(1) A judgment to which this section applies shall not be registered under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 or Part I of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and no court in the United Kingdom shall entertain proceedings at common law for the recovery of any sum payable under such a judgment. (2) This section applies to any judgment given by a court of an overseas country, being – (a)  a judgment for multiple damages within the meaning of subsection (3) below…(3)  In subsection (2)(a) above a judgment for multiple damages means a judgment for an amount arrived at by doubling, trebling or otherwise multiplying a sum assessed as compensation for the loss or damage sustained by the person in whose favour the judgment is given."

At trial before Mr Justice Calver, Hytera contended that section 5 PTIA was fatal to enforcement of the compensatory and punitive damages under the DTSA; and the parts of the judgments relating to interest, fees and costs. Motorola Solutions contended that section 5 only barred enforcement of the punitive element of a judgment for multiple damages, not the compensatory element. The judge held that section 5 barred enforcement of the compensatory and punitive damages under the DTSA and also the claims for interest, fees and costs.

The Court of Appeal has now upheld that decision. It held that the language of section 5 bars enforcement of the whole of a multiple damages claim, including its compensatory part. What is barred under section 5(1) is "any sum payable" under a qualifying judgment, which includes a judgment for multiple damages within the meaning of section 5(3). Where a judgment is for treble damages by multiplying the sum assessed as compensation by three, the "amount arrived at" includes the compensatory element.

The court also rejected Motorola Solutions' argument that section 5 did not bar enforcement of ancillary awards of interest, fees, and costs. Section 5(1) precludes enforcement of "any sum payable under" a judgment for multiple damages: language clearly wide enough to catch ancillary awards, To hold otherwise would let a creditor enforce a judgment to recover the costs of securing an entirely unenforceable award.

Osborne Clarke comment

This judgment is significant for any party seeking to enforce a US judgment containing a punitive or multiple damages element in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that section 5 of PTIA bars recovery of all aspects of any multiple damages award. The bar under section 5(1) extends to "any sum payable under" the relevant judgment, meaning that ancillary awards, including pre- and post-judgment interest, legal fees and costs, are equally unenforceable where they cannot be attributed solely to a separately enforceable compensatory claim.

Practically, this creates a significant hurdle for US judgment creditors seeking to enforce in England any US judgment where the DTSA, or similar statutes permitting multiplied damages, forms part of the basis for the award. If a party is simultaneously awarded compensatory and multiple damages under a single judgment, the compensatory element is not severable and enforceable in isolation, rendering the entire judgment unenforceable in England and Wales. Creditors should take care, at the outset of US proceedings, to consider whether there is likely to be any need to enforce the judgment in England and, if so, whether it is advisable to seek a judgment for multiple damages.