Search
Granville Technology Group Ltd & Ors v LG Display Co Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 409
The Court of Appeal (Males, Snowden and Cockerill LLJ) yesterday handed down judgment in an appeal against an award of damages by the High Court (news item from 9 February 2024) in the long-running claims by Granville and OCT in respect of a cartel in the supply of LCD panels, which operated from 2001 to 2006.
The claimants, whilst successful, had argued on appeal that the High Court had been wrong to follow ‘the cautionary approach’ identified in Asda Stores Ltd v. Mastercard Inc [2017] EWHC 93 (Comm). That approach meant erring on the side of under-compensation when complete precision is not possible, which the Court of Appeal had subsequently found was the wrong approach. When this was brought to the judge’s attention at the draft judgment stage, he amended his judgment to add a footnote stating that he had reviewed his conclusions and was satisfied that they were not influenced by any reliance on such a cautionary principle. The Court of Appeal had no doubt that the Judge had carried out conscientiously the exercise of reviewing his conclusions but held that the text of his judgment had to speak for itself, and that on that basis to allow the judge’s figures to stand would leave the claimants with an understandable sense that the result was unjust.
The Court found that it would not be right to send the matter back to the same judge, and disproportionate to order a trial of the issue by another judge, so that the only possible course was for the Court to make its own adjustments, applying the ‘broad axe’. It held that the overcharge rate found below should be increased (from 4% and 8%, for the main product categories, to 6% and 10%) whilst the rate of downstream pass-on should be reduced (to 60% from 65%).
Separate grounds of appeal concerning the specification of a regression model used to estimate overcharge and the assessment of downstream pass-on were rejected on the basis that they reflected factual assessments open to the judge with which the Court of Appeal ought not to interfere.
Stefan Kuppen acted for the successful appellants and claimants, instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP.