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

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

The trial judge erred in law by applying a principle to err on the side of under-compensation when assessing both the overcharge and downstream pass on, contrary to binding appellate authority. The correct approach is to aim for the right amount of compensation. The appellate court substituted its own assessment, increasing the overcharge percentages and reducing the downstream pass on percentage.

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 / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Cartel Damages, Price Fixing, Assessment of Damages, Downstream Pass on, Mitigation of Loss
Competition Law Damages Commercial Law Cartel Damages Price Fixing Assessment of Damages Downstream Pass on Mitigation of Loss

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by applying a principle to err 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 failed to apply the correct legal test for downstream pass on (direct and proximate causative link)

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by applying a principle to err on the side of under-compensation when assessing both the overcharge and downstream pass on, contrary to binding appellate authority. The correct approach is to aim for the right amount of compensation. The appellate court substituted its own assessment, increasing the overcharge percentages and reducing the downstream pass on percentage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Damages to be recalculated on the basis of an overcharge of 10% for monitors, 6% for notebooks, and 16% for TVs, with 60% downstream pass on.
  • Parties to calculate the revised damages accordingly.