The Evidentiary Bar in UK Competition Damages Claims

Evidently, We Need More – Burden’s On You!

A UK Perspective on the Evidentiary Bar in Competition Damages Proceedings

Across the UK competition litigation landscape – whether in collective proceedings or ordinary competition damages claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) or the High Court – one trend has become unmistakable: as more cases reach trial, courts are demanding more. More evidence, more robustness, and more discipline in how claimants plead and prove cases. 

This paper examines recent trends in the UK courts’ approach to the key evidential battlegrounds, examines the ways in which theoretical cases that are evidentially sparse have fallen short, and suggests that it is becoming increasingly clear that success in the private damages context hinges on parties’ abilities to fully and coherently substantiate their arguments.

The paper explores, in particular:

• the recalibration of merits scrutiny at the certification stage following Evans v Barclays;
• the difficulty of establishing standalone liability where infringement theories rely primarily on inference;
• the courts’ close scrutiny of causation and economic modelling, including the limits of extrapolation and the use of the “broad axe”; and
• the implications of these trends for both claimants and defendants in UK competition litigation, including opt‑out collective proceedings.

The paper was prepared by Jennifer Reeves of Geradin Partners and Euan Burrows of White & Case for the ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting 2026. It summarises the discussion points for their panel rather than their collective view.

▶ Download the full paper (PDF)