UK: Britned Developments v. Abb : First UK Cartel Follow-On Judgment Finds No Deliberate Overcharge

Background and relevance of High Court's Decision

On 9 October 2018, the High Court of England and Wales ordered Swiss engineering company ABB to pay BritNed Developments just over €13 million for damages suffered as a result of a cartel in the power cable sector, concluding that the factual and expert evidence did not support BritNed's claim that it had been overcharged by €180 million.

The case stems from a 2014 decision by the European Commission (EC) which found that, between 1999 and 2009, ABB and ten other companies were involved in a global cartel in the underground and submarine high-voltage-power cable sector by sharing markets, allocating and rigging bids, and exchanging competitively sensitive information. An EEA-wide cartel involving only the European suppliers was considered to be part of this global cartel. The fines imposed by the EC totalled €302 million, but ABB was not fined as it benefited from immunity under the EC's leniency programme.

BritNed, a joint venture between the UK's National Grid and Dutch electricity grid operator TenneT, was a customer of ABB during the cartel period, following the negotiation and award of a contract for the construction of the BritNed Interconnector, an electricity submarine cable system connecting the UK with mainland Europe. In 2015, BritNed issued proceedings against ABB in the High Court claiming damages of €180 million as compensation for the alleged cartel overcharge.

The High Court's judgment in BritNed is a landmark case as it is the first cartel follow-on damages claim to reach a judgment on the merits in the UK, and the 198-page judgment provides detailed guidance on the approach the English Court is likely to take to proof of loss resulting from a cartel. Although the High Court did find ABB liable to pay damages to BritNed, the court broadly accepted ABB's position that the cartel did not result in an overcharge, and the damages awarded were a fraction of BritNed's claim. The case turned on the factual evidence concerning the negotiations between BritNed and ABB.

It remains to be seen whether the judgment will be appealed and on what grounds, and what attitude the Court of Appeal will take to the High Court's approach to damages.

The Outcome of the Case

The court found no evidence that the existence of the cartel had resulted in an overcharge in relation to the BritNed Interconnector project. On the contrary, the court concluded that the price charged by ABB was in line with the prices for equivalent post-cartel projects and ABB's bid was considered to be an "honest and competent bid." The key factual evidence that led the court to this conclusion was that ABB's key individuals involved in negotiating the BritNed contract were not aware of the existence of the cartel or that the other cartelists had agreed not to compete on the project.

The High Court did, however, identify damages of approximately €13 million, attributable to two aspects of ABB's participation in the cartel. First, the court concluded that there were "baked-in inefficiencies" in ABB's cable design resulting from the lack of competition (in particular, the excessive width of the cabling used, which had required a larger than necessary amount of material). The High Court considered that, had there been a properly competitive environment, ABB would have faced more efficient and competitive technical solutions from others in the market, which would have involved less copper and insulation and resulted in ABB either cutting costs or losing the contract. These baked-in inefficiencies resulted in an inflated cost to BritNed of approximately €7.5 million. Second, the court identified cost savings to ABB due to the control of allocation and management of cables supply as a result of the cartel, which inflated the common costs included in the price charged to BritNed by a further amount of approximately €5.5 million.

The court dismissed ABB's argument that any overcharge suffered by BritNed should be reduced or eliminated in light of the regulatory cap imposed on BritNed's earnings and considered ABB liable for the damages assessed, as the court concluded that any collateral benefit such as that derived from the operation of the cap should be disregarded for the purpose of assessing a claimant's loss and awarding damages.

The judgment rejected BritNed's lost profit claim related to the capacity (1,000MW) of the power cable it chose to purchase from ABB. The factual evidence showed that, even in the absence of the cartel, BritNed would have made the same choice of power cable and, therefore, achieved the same profit.

Finally, BritNed's claim for compound interest on the basis of additional financing needed as a result of ABB's overcharge was rejected, also on the basis of the facts that were before the court. The High Court considered that because BritNed was funded entirely through shareholder equity, it had not incurred any additional costs from having to raise additional capital.

What Are the Key Takeaways?

In addition to being the first cartel follow-on damages action to reach a final judgment in the UK, the importance of the BritNed judgment lies in a number of principles that are established by the case and which (assuming they withstand any appeal) will be crucial for future cartel follow-on claims in the English Court.

  • The Facts Are King. Every aspect of the BritNed judgment emphasises the factual evidence that was presented to the court. On this basis, the court rejected the claim that the price paid by BritNed was subject to a general cartel overcharge. It was the factual evidence that determined the court's assessment of the expert evidence, the lost profits claim and the compound interest claim.
  • Notion of Actionable Damage. The High Court considered that the harm that gives rise to a cause of action for breach of competition law—to be determined on the basis of a balance of probabilities—need not necessarily be identified in some monetary harm. Rather, this harm may consist of the reduction of the claimant's benefit (either in the form of an increased price or of a reduction in the number of suppliers properly participating in a tender) suffered as a result of the restriction or distortion of competition.
  • Definition of Overcharge and the Right Counterfactual. The High Court considered that the correct approach to defining overcharge should be the difference between the price actually agreed and the price that would have resulted absent the cartel, whoever the party contracting with BritNed would have been in the counterfactual world—the counterfactual should not be limited to the price ABB would have offered in the absence of the cartel.
  • Presumption of Overcharges. The court rejected the suggestion that it should adopt a presumption of an overcharge in this case. This aspect of the European Union's Damages Directive of December 2014, which introduces a presumption of harm in cartel damages cases, does not apply to conduct that predated the implementation of the Damages Directive in the UK in March 2017. Further, contrary to BritNed's claim, the court concluded that the principle of effectiveness does not require a presumption of harm in antitrust damages cases; if that were the case, it would be difficult to see why the Damages Directive had required Member States to introduce such a presumption into their domestic laws. In any event, the court considered that a presumption of harm would fail to assist in the assessment and quantification of damages in this particular case where the presumption was rebutted by the expert and factual evidence.
  • ABB's Prior Conduct. The High Court rejected the suggestion that ABB's prior participation in other cartels could be taken into account to assess BritNed's damages.
  • The Weight Attributed to the EC's Decision. The High Court's ruling only in part relied on the EC's 2014 infringement decision. Only the operative part of the decision and those recitals constituting the essential basis for the decision were considered to be binding on the court. The fact that most of the decision did not deal specifically with the BritNed Interconnector project, and that large parts of it were redacted, prompted the High Court to attach limited weight to the nonbinding recitals, preferring instead to rely on the factual and expert evidence presented at trial.
  • The Advantage Derived from Knowledge of the Cartel. The court recognised that among the advantages that ABB derived from the cartel was ABB's knowledge that it faced less competition because of the cartel. However, importantly, the court placed great weight on the fact that ABB's key individuals involved in negotiating the BritNed Interconnector contract and formulating the ABB bid had no knowledge of the cartel and the lack of competition. This prevented the knowledge of the cartel from translating into a direct influence on both direct and common costs.1 The court also recognised that "baked-in inefficiencies" could occur notwithstanding the honesty of those involved in formulating the bid.
  • The Limits of Expert Evidence. In several parts of the judgment, and while recognising the value of expert evidence, the High Court was somewhat reluctant to rely entirely on expert evidence, unless it was properly grounded in the facts that were in evidence before the court. For example, when evaluating whether the direct costs of ABB's bid could have been affected by the cartel, the court explicitly rejected the submission that an expert economist with no expertise in the field would be able to "spot the illicit inflation of a direct cost for dubious and not well-founded technical reasons." Further, the BritNed economist's reluctance to use ABB's actual data, largely due to its complexity and alleged unreliability, and her reliance on a number of proxies were heavily criticised; some of the elements in her approach2 were also judged to be inappropriate.

The BritNed judgment clarifies that not every breach of competition law necessarily leads to customers being overcharged on all elements of a contract. In this case, the judge took a restrictive approach to the analysis of overcharge, relying heavily on the factual evidence before the court. This was possibly because of the unusual nature of this case involving as it did the negotiation of the price for a single project. Such an approach may be feasible in similar cases, where strong evidence of negotiations is available, but it remains to be seen if different principles may apply in cases involving large numbers of individually negotiated contracts.


1 The court noted, in particular, that only two persons involved in the tender were aware of the cartel; since the compilation of the details of ABB's tender was in the hands of others, those with knowledge of the cartel would not have had the ability to influence the level of costs of ABB's bid.

2 In particular, the inclusion of underground projects in the cost analysis—disregarding how, differently from underground projects, submarine cable projects such as the BritNed Interconnector project are very much bespoke and unique in their specification and in the manner in which they are negotiated.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions