“The sole question for the Court at this hearing is what should happen now. The Republic’s position is that the Claim is now unsustainable in light of the Second Circuit Judgment, such that service should immediately be set aside and the Claim dismissed. It applies to amend the Jurisdiction Challenge to rely on the Second Circuit Judgment as a new and discrete ground (referred to as “Ground A”) for the relief sought, and for that Ground to be determined now. The Republic’s position is simple. The Claim for recognition and enforcement was premised on the existence of a final and conclusive foreign judgment. As a result of the Second Circuit Judgment, the SDNY Judgment [of Judge Preska] is no longer final and conclusive. There is accordingly no basis for these proceedings, or for the alleged jurisdiction of the Court over the Republic which the Claimants have sought to invoke. …”
“By an application filed on27 April 2026 … the Republic seeks permission to amend its original application notice in respect of the jurisdiction challenge in order to add a new basis for permission to serve out being set aside and the claim being dismissed, namely the impact of the Second Circuit Judgment (referred to as the “Ground A Jurisdiction Challenge”, to distinguish it from the original grounds, referred to as the Ground B Jurisdiction Challenge …). If permission is granted, the Republic further seeks, as a matter of case management, the determinationof the Ground A Jurisdiction Challenge. This is a short point, which can and should be resolved now.”
“First, it is undesirable in the context of this hotly contested litigation, which has already been the subject of multiple appeals here and in the US, to repeatedly grant and revoke final judgments. The rapidly changing circumstances of litigation of this kind are better catered for by the grant of appropriate stays underCPR Part 40.8 A, if necessary on terms as to security, designed to avoid injustice to either party. It will be soon enough, when Motorola’s entitlements under US judgments are clear, for the English Judgment to be revoked and replaced with a final judgment in the appropriate amount. Secondly, this is not, as we have said, an unusual or exceptional situation. Our law entitles foreign judgment creditors, holding a final first instance judgment, to enforce it in England & Wales, even whilst it is under appeal. It is undesirable, in this relatively commonplace situation, for the English Court to have to react, in terms of final judgments, to the twists and turns of the foreign judicial process. There are better ways of achieving just interim solutions. Thirdly, we do not underestimate the commercial consequences for any commercial entity, including Hytera in this case, of having large judgments stand against them, when they are likely eventually to need to be revoked or varied. But that is the consequence of our private international law that allows final foreign first instance judgments to be enforced whilst under appeal abroad, subject only to a stay in appropriate circumstances. Any interested observer can have the situation fully explained. This judgment will serve that purpose for Hytera's trading partners. It is not indicative of requiring, as we have now said twice, the English court to repeatedly grant and revoke final judgments, which have been granted, in the first place, only for the purpose of enforcement.”