Use of Economics and Econometrics in BritNed to Calculate Follow-On Damages Examined by Analysis Group Experts
July 29, 2019
Every year, Global Competition Review (GCR) publishes a series of reports offering detailed information to agencies and practitioners engaged in antitrust and competition work throughout the world. The 2020 edition of the review focused on Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) includes an economics overview written by Analysis Group Principal David Mishol, Vice Presidents Claudio Calcagno and Joshua White, and Manager Giuseppe Buglione, all of whom are based in the firm’s London office.
In their article, the authors consider the use of economics and econometrics in the context of assessing antitrust damages. They focus on the recent decision by the High Court of England and Wales in BritNed Development v ABB, the first cartel follow-on damages claim to reach judgment on the merits in the UK. In this case, the claimant’s and defendant’s economic experts applied differing empirical methodologies to estimate damages: BritNed’s expert relied on regression analysis to estimate the level of the overcharge, while ABB’s expert largely avoided econometrics. In this case, the Court found the non-econometric approach more reliable, which the authors note serves to highlight the importance of ensuring that any econometric evidence is rooted in the facts and data of the case, that it is clearly set out in an intuitive fashion, and that key limitations are highlighted and addressed.
“Economics: Overview” is an extract from GCR’s Europe, Middle East and Africa Antitrust Review 2020, first published in July 2019.