The High Court struck out a re-amended statement of claim brought by three Imagine group companies against Motorola, but left the proceedings in place and proposed giving the companies time to file a new claim.
Mr Justice Clarke ruled on 9 November 2011 that the pleading did not comply with an earlier order requiring the companies to set out their case and factual particulars in a way that made further requests for particulars unnecessary. The court said the failure was significant and material.
The dispute concerns agreements made in 2009 for Motorola to provide a WiMax telecommunications network. The plaintiffs allege that Motorola failed to roll out the network on time and provide services of the required quality. Motorola denies wrongdoing. Those allegations had not been determined at trial.
The contractual arrangements were initially between Motorola and Irish Broadband Internet Services Limited, trading as Imagine Networks. A later novation agreement involved IBB Internet Services Limited, and the proceedings also name Imagine Communications Group Limited, the parent company. The judgment said the network business and losses were spread among several companies in the group, raising questions about which company could claim damages for any proven breach.
The court rejected Motorola’s argument that an earlier order had limited the companies to amendments based only on points raised at the earlier hearing. But it agreed that the order required more detail than an ordinary statement of claim. In particular, the pleading did not identify whether alleged representations supporting Imagine’s claimed collateral contract were made before the master services agreement, between that agreement and the novation, or afterward. The court said that timing was material to Motorola’s understanding of the case. It did not decide whether the collateral-contract claim could ultimately succeed.
The judge also identified other deficiencies: the pleading did not separately explain the claim that the two operating companies formed a single economic entity, or clearly explain why their alleged damages would match those claimed by the parent under the wider group argument.
The order was limited to striking out the statement of claim; Motorola had not sought to strike out the proceedings themselves. The judge proposed allowing a new statement of claim within a period to be fixed after discussion with counsel, with directions to address the deficiencies. He also proposed setting deadlines for any further requests for particulars and replies. The costs of the proceedings to date remained to be ruled on after counsel had considered the judgment.