Skip to content 
This is Part 5 of a series on the High Court route for UK Amazon sellers whose accounts have been deactivated and whose funds have been withheld. Parts 1 and 2 set out the case for a coordinated claim and the contractual framework. Part 3 addressed jurisdiction over the Luxembourg side of the Amazon structure. Part 4 turned to the three primary claims against Amazon Payments UK Limited. In this part we turn to quantum — the categories of loss a seller can realistically expect to recover, the heads that have been rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service and are likely to be rejected by the court, and what the documentary record needs to look like if a meaningful recovery is to be achieved.
A note before we start
Quantum is fact-specific. Two sellers with similar accounts and deactivation dates can have vastly different recoverable losses based on their trading history, documentation, and the duration of the unfair freeze. Nothing in this Part is an estimate of what any individual seller can expect to recover. It is a map of the categories of loss the court is most likely to allow and most likely to refuse, drawn from the Financial Ombudsman’s published reasoning and from the orthodox approach an English court takes to commercial damages.
Sellers who want a meaningful assessment of their position need to send us their documents. Quantum without documents is, in either direction, speculation.
The principal sum
The first and largest head of loss is the withheld principal itself—the funds APUK is holding in the seller’s account. Where the contractual claim succeeds, or the unjust enrichment claim succeeds, the principal is recoverable in full. This is the irreducible core of any claim. It is also the one head on which there is, in practice, very little argument once liability is established: the money is held in a safeguarded account, the seller is the beneficial owner, and on a finding that the retention was unlawful or unjustified, the court will order its release.
Interest
Interest on the withheld principal is the second head, and the Financial Ombudsman’s methodology provides a useful starting point for what the court is likely to do. The Ombudsman has consistently awarded eight per cent simple interest per annum, running from the date the funds should have been released to the date of payment.
The High Court’s starting point is statutory interest under Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which gives the court wide discretion as to rate, period and basis. In practice, English commercial courts have often awarded interest at rates between the base rate plus one per cent and the base rate plus three per cent, although the rate is sensitive to the kind of claim and the conduct of the parties. Where the unjust enrichment claim succeeds, the court can in principle award damages calculated by reference to the time value of the money on a commercial basis, which may produce a higher figure than statutory interest.
What this ruling means in practice is that the interest figure on a long-running freeze is not a trivial add-on. On a three- or four-year hold the interest can be a substantial sum in its own right, and it accrues until the money is actually paid.
Lost sales for a defined period of unfair delay
The third head is lost sales — but it has to be approached with care.
The Ombudsman’s approach, in the cases we have reviewed, is to identify a discrete period during which the seller’s selling privileges should have been restored and were not and to award damages calculated by reference to the seller’s verified daily sales over a reasonable trailing period before the freeze. Where that approach is followed, lost sales during the period of unfair delay represent a real and significant recoverable head. The court will, in our view, take a comparable approach.
The court will not allow a seller to recover lost sales for the entire period of the freeze if part of that period was occupied by what the court considers a justified review. The recoverable period is the period of unfair delay, not the period of delay as a whole. Identifying when the freeze became unfair is, therefore, one of the most important factual exercises in the case and turns substantially on the documentary record: what APUK said, what ASE said, what the seller provided, and when each side responded.
Storage and ancillary fees
The fourth head is the storage fees that ASE has continued to charge the seller during the freeze. The Financial Ombudsman has accepted, in the cases reviewed, that these are properly recoverable where they were causally tied to the unfair element of the freeze — in other words, where the seller would not have incurred them but for APUK’s delay in releasing the block. The same logic applies to advertising fees levied during a period when the seller could not actually sell. We would expect the court to take a similar approach.
This head is often overlooked by sellers who focus on the withheld principal and the lost sales. It should not be. On a long-running freeze the accumulated storage charges can themselves run into thousands of pounds, and they are usually well-documented because ASE invoices for them.
Loss of business value
The fifth head is the most difficult. Where the prolonged freeze has caused or materially contributed to the destruction of the underlying business — where the seller has been forced to discontinue product lines, lose key suppliers, or wind the company up — there is, in principle, a claim for the diminution in the value of the business at the date the freeze became unjustifiable.
This remedy is doctrinally available, but it requires substantial expert evidence. A business-valuation expert will need to be instructed. The valuation methodology will need to withstand challenge. The causal link between APUK’s conduct and the diminution in value will need to be established with care: where the business was already in difficulty, or where the decline can be attributed to external factors, the claim is correspondingly weaker.
Where the evidence is strong, this head can dominate the quantum. Where the evidence is thin, you should not plead it. The intermediate cases — where the seller believes the business was destroyed by the freeze but cannot yet point to the expert evidence to prove it — are the ones that need careful early assessment before the claim is shaped.
What the court will not award
The Financial Ombudsman has, in a developing line of decisions, repeatedly and emphatically refused to award damages on two related bases: speculative projected-turnover figures unsupported by independent evidence and inflated reputation-damage claims. We see no reason to think the court will take a different view and good reason to think it will be even more rigorous.
Projected turnover is not, by itself, evidence of loss. A seller claiming that turnover would have been higher but for the freeze must show, first, the basis for the projection; second, that it is methodologically sound; and third, that the shortfall is due to APUK’s conduct, not external factors, the original review (which APUK was entitled to carry out), or the seller’s own mitigation choices. Each of those steps requires evidence. Projections produced after the event, by the claimant, without independent verification, will not satisfy the court.
The same is true of reputation damage. A claim that the freeze has damaged the seller’s reputation in the marketplace is doctrinally available, but it requires evidence of the kind that ordinary sellers usually do not have to hand: independent assessments of brand value, before-and-after market data, and evidence of specific lost commercial relationships causally tied to the freeze rather than to the original deactivation. Without that evidence, the claim should not be pleaded, and pleading it without evidence damages the rest of the case’s credibility.
There is a particular caution worth flagging. The financial ombudsman has, in one of the decisions reviewed, treated the inflation of a claim between investigator and ombudsman stages as itself a negative credibility factor. The point applies with equal or greater force in court. Quantum should be pleaded with restraint, supported by evidence, and not escalated mid-litigation in response to procedural developments. A claim that grows under pressure is a claim that loses under pressure.
Distress and inconvenience
The position on non-pecuniary damages depends on who the claimant is.
A limited company cannot, as a matter of English law, experience distress. The Ombudsman has consistently said so, and it is right. Where the seller is a limited company, the only available non-pecuniary head is inconvenience to the company itself — typically modest and not a substantial component of the recovery.
Where the seller is a sole trader, the position is more open. The award is fact-sensitive and is not normally a major component of recovery. It is worth pleading where the facts support it, but it should not be the focus of the case.
What the documentary record needs to look like
The single most important practical point in this part is that recovery — on every head — depends on the documentary record. The contractual claim depends on showing that APUK’s restriction was not reasonably justified for the period imposed, which is a documentary exercise. The unjust enrichment claim depends on the same documents. The lost-sales head depends on verified historic trading data. The storage-fees head depends on the ASE invoices. The loss-of-business-value head depends on financial records and expert input. The distress head, for sole traders, depends on contemporaneous evidence of the impact.
Sellers whose accounts have been deactivated should, as a matter of priority, preserve every piece of correspondence with both APUK and ASE – every email, every Seller Central message, every notification, every invoice from ASE for storage, advertising, or other fees, their historical Amazon trading data, exported where possible, and their financial records for the period before, during and after the freeze. We can properly advise sellers who come to us with that material. Sellers who come to us without it can receive only general advice, making it correspondingly harder to justify their inclusion in the cohort.
Where the series is going next
Part 6 will turn to the claims that lie against ASE, the Luxembourg side of the Amazon structure – both the contractual claim under the Business Solutions Agreement and the tort claim for inducing breach of APUK’s contract with the seller. These claims sit within the jurisdictional question we explored in Part 3 and have to be considered with that question in mind. Part 7 will then deal with limitations under the Limitation Act 1980 — how long a seller has to bring a claim, why it is shorter than sellers usually assume, and why the cohort we are assembling needs to hear from affected sellers now.
If your account has been deactivated
If you are a UK-established Amazon seller whose selling account has been deactivated and APUK is still holding funds that have not been released to you, we would like to hear from you. Time matters — the limitation under the Limitation Act 1980 cuts off the oldest claims, and the earlier we see the documentation, the better placed we are to assess where your case sits on that timeline and whether it fits within the cohort we are assembling. The single most useful thing a seller can do today is gather the documents.
Please contact Michael Coyle at michael.coyle@lawdit.co.uk or via the contact form at lawdit.co.uk.
