Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation) and others (Appellants) v LG Display Co Ltd and others (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0078

Parties

Appellant(s)

1) Granville Technology Group Limited (in Liquidation) 2) VMT Limited (in Liquidation) 3) OT Computers Limited (in liquidation)

Respondent(s)

(1) LG Display Co Ltd (2) LG Display Taiwan Co Ltd

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd

Issue

For a defendant to successfully rely on a defence of pass-on to a claim brought for the recovery of losses incurred as a result of an unlawful cartel, must the court insist that the defendant prove a direct causal link between the cartel overcharge and increases in the claimants’ prices?

Facts

The appellants in this case are all companies which have been in liquidation for several years. Their businesses previously involved the manufacture and sale of desktop personal computers (PCs), monitors and notebooks. The appellants sold their products principally to retail end users, although some of their products were sold commercially to business and educational end users. The respondents are manufacturers and sellers of (among other things) thin film liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels. They are based in South Korea and Taiwan but operate worldwide. The European Commission found that between 5th October 2001 and 1st February 2006, there was a cartel in the worldwide market for thin film transistor LCD panels. The Commission found that the respondents had participated in the cartel by unlawfully entering into agreements and/or concerted practices in the European Economic Area in respect of the sale of LCD panels for TV, notebook and monitor application. The appellants brought a claim (known as a ‘follow-on’ claim) in the English courts to recover compensation for losses they incurred as a result of the cartel. They said that (as a result of the cartel) the prices they paid for LCD panels and products incorporating LCD panels were higher than they would otherwise have been. The respondents argued that the appellants were not entitled to compensation, because the appellants had successfully mitigated their losses by passing on the overcharge to their customers downstream, via increased prices. The trial judge awarded the appellants some damages, but much less than they had claimed. This was because the trial judge concluded that they had passed on 65% of their losses to consumers downstream. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had wrongly erred on the side of under-compensation, and concluded that the appellants had only passed on 60% of their losses. However, the Court of Appeal did not otherwise find that the trial judge had erred in his approach to the issue of pass-on. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.