The High Court gave three Imagine-related plaintiffs a final opportunity to clarify their €100 million-plus claim against Motorola, ordering them to deliver a re-amended statement of claim with full particulars of the facts they intend to rely on.
Mr Justice Kelly’s 6 July 2011 judgment concerned a procedural motion over the clarity of the pleadings. It did not decide whether Motorola breached contracts, made negligent representations or owed damages.
The first two plaintiffs began the action in December 2010. They alleged that contracts made in 2009 and a side letter concerned works and services for a WiMax telecommunications network, and that Motorola misrepresented the network’s capability and capacity. They further alleged breach of contract and negligence. The third plaintiff joined when the case transferred to the Commercial List in February 2011. A statement of claim delivered in March sought damages exceeding €100 million.
After requests for particulars and responses, the plaintiffs delivered an amended statement of claim in May. Motorola argued that the amended pleading left it unclear what case it had to answer. The dispute included whether the third plaintiff could claim because the companies operated as a “single economic entity,” whether the first and second plaintiffs had contracted as its agents, and which companies had earned revenue from network customers. The judge recorded Motorola’s argument that the single-entity and agency pleas were inconsistent and that the first two plaintiffs could not themselves have suffered loss under either version.
At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel said the case would be that the companies operated as a single economic entity, with the third plaintiff effectively the contracting party; alternatively, the first and second plaintiffs contracted as its agents. The judgment records these as the plaintiffs’ proposed cases, not findings by the court.
Mr Justice Kelly found that the pleadings did not state the plaintiffs’ case with the required certainty and that the defendant was disadvantaged in preparing its defence. He ordered a re-amended statement of claim setting out the case and its factual basis in full, so further particulars would be unnecessary. He said the unusual single-economic-unit plea required particularity. The judgment’s comments on alternative pleas set out pleading principles only: it expressed no view on whether the plaintiffs’ theories would succeed and noted that a later application to strike out remained possible. The supplied judgment ends by saying the judge would fix a time for delivery; it does not state that deadline.