COMPETITION COMMISSION v. LINDE HKO LTD AND OTHERS

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. LINDE HKO LTD AND OTHERS

The application to compel the respondents to make general discovery was refused because the Commission had not followed the required procedure (no summons in Form 2 under Rule 8) and had failed to identify or justify the documents or categories sought; discovery, if pursued, must be sought by proper application and confined to specific categories justified as necessary and proportionate given the Commission's investigatory powers.

Citation
[2021] HKCT 3
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; 1st Respondent: LINDE HKO LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: TSE CHUN WAH; 3rd Respondent: LINDE GMBH
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 2021
Case Number
CTEA3/2020
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action / Case Management Conference for Directions
Outcome
Declined to order the respondents to make discovery at this time; dismissed the Commission's informal request for general discovery for lack of proper procedure and justification
Legal Topics
Discovery, Disclosure Requirements, Tribunal Rules (rule 24, Rule 8), Proportionality, Investigatory Powers
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Discovery Disclosure Requirements Tribunal Rules (rule 24, Rule 8) Proportionality Investigatory Powers

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

LINDE HKO LIMITED

1st Respondent

TSE CHUN WAH

2nd Respondent

LINDE GMBH

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action / Case Management Conference for Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should order respondents to give general discovery absent a formal application
  2. 2 What procedural steps are required under the Competition Tribunal Rules to obtain discovery
  3. 3 Whether broad discovery is necessary and proportionate given the Commission's investigatory powers

Ratio Decidendi

The application to compel the respondents to make general discovery was refused because the Commission had not followed the required procedure (no summons in Form 2 under Rule 8) and had failed to identify or justify the documents or categories sought; discovery, if pursued, must be sought by proper application and confined to specific categories justified as necessary and proportionate given the Commission's investigatory powers.

Court Disposition

Declined to order the respondents to make discovery at this time; dismissed the Commission's informal request for general discovery for lack of proper procedure and justification