The authors reflect on the main takeaways from three important new judgments in competition litigation, and how those judgments relate to economic evidence provided in competition matters.
The United Kingdom has recently seen three important new judgments in competition litigation: Granville, Royal Mail and Gormsen.
In this article, authors Anca Cojoc, Hannah Tilson and Oliver Young discuss the themes emerging from these judgments:
- In highly complex cases, where economic analysis may not provide precise estimates of losses, courts still place much value on this evidence as the anchor for application of ‘broad axe’ approaches.
- Robust and high-quality economic analyses continue to prevail in the estimation of losses and courts prefer these over simple methods, even when such evidence introduces significant technical complexity.
- Sound economic reasoning, based on available factual evidence, is likely to remain crucial in establishing the pass-on of overcharges, especially when costs cannot directly be traced into downstream prices.
- Where documentary evidence is lacking, arguments based on economic reasoning can be persuasive. However, a failure to fully account for available factual evidence will undermine experts’ testimony.
This article was published in Global Competition Review (GCR)’s Europe, Middle East and Africa Antitrust Review.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Cornerstone Research.
London
