COMPETITION COMMISSION v. QUANTR LTD AND ANOTHER

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. QUANTR LTD AND ANOTHER

On the admitted facts the 1st Respondent engaged in an agreement/concerted practice amounting to price‑fixing in breach of the First Conduct Rule and the 2nd Respondent was involved under s.91; the Tribunal has power to make declarations, impose the agreed pecuniary penalty of HK$37,702.26 and to record and give effect to the parties’ consent settlement including the compliance schedule and stay of further proceedings, and to order costs to the Commission.

Citation
[2020] HKCT 10
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; 1st Respondent: Quantr Limited; 2nd Respondent: Cheung Man Kit
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2020
Case Number
CTEA1/2020
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action Under the Competition Ordinance (cap.619) / Consent Judgment Following Rule 39 Summary (carecraft) Procedure
Outcome
Consent judgment: declarations of contravention and involvement granted; pecuniary penalty imposed; settlement terms in Schedule approved; stay of specified proceedings on terms; costs awarded to Applicant.
Legal Topics
Cartel / Bid‑rigging, Pecuniary Penalty, Director Liability and Involvement (s.91), Compliance Orders and Undertakings
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Cartel / Bid‑rigging Pecuniary Penalty Director Liability and Involvement (s.91) Compliance Orders and Undertakings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Quantr Limited

1st Respondent

Cheung Man Kit

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action Under the Competition Ordinance (cap.619) / Consent Judgment Following Rule 39 Summary (carecraft) Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Respondent contravened the First Conduct Rule (s.6) by exchanging price‑sensitive information and coordinating bids
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent was involved in that contravention under s.91
  3. 3 Appropriateness and quantum of a pecuniary penalty under s.93 and methodology for calculation

Ratio Decidendi

On the admitted facts the 1st Respondent engaged in an agreement/concerted practice amounting to price‑fixing in breach of the First Conduct Rule and the 2nd Respondent was involved under s.91; the Tribunal has power to make declarations, impose the agreed pecuniary penalty of HK$37,702.26 and to record and give effect to the parties’ consent settlement including the compliance schedule and stay of further proceedings, and to order costs to the Commission.

Court Disposition

Consent judgment: declarations of contravention and involvement granted; pecuniary penalty imposed; settlement terms in Schedule approved; stay of specified proceedings on terms; costs awarded to Applicant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st Respondent contravened the First Conduct Rule under s.6 of the Competition Ordinance (Cap.619).
  • Declaration that the 2nd Respondent was a person involved in the 1st Respondent’s contravention under s.91 of the Competition Ordinance.