Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation) & Ors v LG Display Co Limited & Anor

In a follow-on cartel damages claim, uncertainty does not justify a claimant-favouring or defendant-favouring bias. The court must use sound imagination and a broad axe to reach the right compensation. Where only a range is available, a figure near its centre will ordinarily be appropriate.

Downstream pass on is mitigation. The defendant must prove that customer prices were higher than otherwise because of the overcharge, establishing a direct and proximate causative link. Recognised causation factors are evidential indicators, not mandatory conditions. Appellate intervention remains limited for findings based on complex expert evidence, but an assessment expressly affected by the wrong under-compensation approach may be corrected on appeal.

The claimants brought a follow-on claim for damages arising from the respondents’ participation in an unlawful LCD panel price-fixing cartel. The High Court, in [2024] EWHC 13 (Comm), assessed total loss at £4,412,716 and awarded £942,438 after account was taken of settlements and interest.

The claimants appealed, alleging that the judge had applied an erroneous under-compensation principle, made errors in assessing the cartel overcharge, and failed to apply the requirement for a direct and proximate causative link when finding 65% downstream pass on. The central issues were the proper approach to uncertainty in damages assessment, the permissible appellate review of complex economic evidence, and the proof required for downstream pass on.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The Court of Appeal varied the overcharge and downstream pass-on figures, while upholding the judge’s principal factual and legal conclusions.
2. Uncertainty and compensation. The correct approach is to use sound imagination and a broad axe, aiming to award the right amount without leaning towards under-compensation or over-compensation. The cautionary principle derived from Asda Stores Ltd v Mastercard Inc [2017] EWHC 93 (Comm) was wrong, as explained in Britned Developments Ltd v ABB AB [2019] EWCA Civ 1840. Where the evidence establishes only a range and no point within it is more probable than another, an award near the centre of the range will ordinarily be appropriate.
3. Overcharge. Findings based on competing econometric models and detailed expert evidence are findings of fact. The appellate court may interfere only for an identifiable error or a conclusion no reasonable judge could have reached. The judge was entitled to prefer a multiple regression model using economically relevant variables, reject lagged-price models and decline to blend models which he considered inferior. However, his final assessment expressly limited the adjustment to avoid over-compensation. The Court therefore reassessed the overcharge at 10% for monitors, 6% for notebooks and 16% for televisions.
4. Downstream pass on. Pass on is mitigation. The defendant bears the legal burden, although the claimant has a heavy evidential burden to explain its pricing practices. The issue is whether the claimant’s prices were higher than they would otherwise have been because of the overcharge, establishing a direct and proximate causative link. The factors identified in Royal Mail Group Ltd v DAF Trucks Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 181 are factual indicators rather than legal requirements. The judge applied that test in substance and was entitled to find some pass on from the surviving documents and market-specific expert evidence.
5. Reassessment of pass on. The judge’s finding of partial pass on was open to him, but his reasoning again expressly adopted under-compensation as a factor. The Court therefore reassessed downstream pass on at 60%. The consequential loss-of-profits calculation was to be adjusted accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Allowed the appeal to a limited extent and varied the overcharge and downstream pass-on figures: [2026] EWCA Civ 409.
• High Court of Justice, Commercial Court Assessed the claimants’ damages arising from the LCD panel cartel and awarded £942,438 after settlements and interest: [2024] EWHC 13 (Comm).