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

Deliberate concealment, even if amounting to equitable fraud, does not suffice to invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction to award compound interest unless it is the cause of action or an element thereof, and unless money has been obtained and retained by fraud. The pleaded facts do not meet these requirements. The claim for compound interest under equitable jurisdiction is therefore struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation); Claimant: VMT Limited (in Liquidation); Claimant: OT Computers Limited (in Liquidation); Defendant: Innolux Corporation; Defendant: Chunghwa Picture Tubes Limited; Defendant/applicant: LG Display Co. Limited; Defendant/applicant: LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd; Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co. Limited; Defendant: Samsung Electronics Taiwan Co. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Damages Claim (follow on Cartel Damages) / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Claim for Compound Interest Under Equitable Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application granted; claim for compound interest under equitable jurisdiction struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.
Legal Topics
Compound Interest, Equitable Jurisdiction, Cartel Damages, Limitation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Competition Law Equity Civil Procedure Compound Interest Equitable Jurisdiction Cartel Damages Limitation Summary Judgment +1 more

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation)

Claimant

VMT Limited (in Liquidation)

Claimant

OT Computers Limited (in Liquidation)

Claimant

Innolux Corporation

Defendant

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Limited

Defendant

LG Display Co. Limited

Defendant/applicant

LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Samsung Electronics Co. Limited

Defendant

Samsung Electronics Taiwan Co. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Damages Claim (follow on Cartel Damages) / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Claim for Compound Interest Under Equitable Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for compound interest under the court’s equitable jurisdiction is maintainable in cartel damages claims absent fraud or fiduciary relationship
  2. 2 Whether deliberate concealment suffices to invoke equity’s jurisdiction for compound interest

Ratio Decidendi

Deliberate concealment, even if amounting to equitable fraud, does not suffice to invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction to award compound interest unless it is the cause of action or an element thereof, and unless money has been obtained and retained by fraud. The pleaded facts do not meet these requirements. The claim for compound interest under equitable jurisdiction is therefore struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Application granted; claim for compound interest under equitable jurisdiction struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.

Orders

  • Offending parts of the pleading relating to compound interest under equitable jurisdiction are struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.