Granville Technology Group Ltd & Ors v LG Display Co Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 409 (01 April 2026)

Granville Technology Group Ltd & Ors v LG Display Co Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 409 (01 April 2026)

The trial judge erred in law by applying a principle of erring on the side of under-compensation when assessing damages, contrary to established appellate authority. The Court of Appeal substituted its own assessment of the overcharge, increasing the percentages for monitors, notebooks, and TVs. The judge's findings on the use of regression models and rejection of lagged variables were upheld. The approach to downstream pass-on was not fully addressed in the truncated text.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 409
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation); Appellant/claimant: VMT Limited (in Liquidation); Appellant/claimant: OT Computers Limited (in Liquidation); Respondent/defendant: LG Display Co. Limited; Respondent/defendant: LG Display Taiwan Co. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Cartel Damages, Price Fixing, Assessment of Damages, Pass on Defence, Breach of Statutory Duty
Competition Law Tort Law Commercial Law Cartel Damages Price Fixing Assessment of Damages Pass on Defence Breach of Statutory Duty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation)

Appellant/claimant

VMT Limited (in Liquidation)

Appellant/claimant

OT Computers Limited (in Liquidation)

Appellant/claimant

LG Display Co. Limited

Respondent/defendant

LG Display Taiwan Co. Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by applying a principle of erring on the side of under-compensation in damages assessment
  2. 2 Whether the judge made errors in determining the overcharge caused by the cartel
  3. 3 Whether the judge applied the correct legal test for downstream pass-on and mitigation of loss

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by applying a principle of erring on the side of under-compensation when assessing damages, contrary to established appellate authority. The Court of Appeal substituted its own assessment of the overcharge, increasing the percentages for monitors, notebooks, and TVs. The judge's findings on the use of regression models and rejection of lagged variables were upheld. The approach to downstream pass-on was not fully addressed in the truncated text.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The overcharge percentages are increased to 10% for monitors, 6% for notebooks, and 16% for TVs.
  • Damages to be recalculated accordingly.