COMPETITION COMMISSION v. QUADIENT TECHNOLOGIES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. QUADIENT TECHNOLOGIES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

The Tribunal held that Kam Kwong settlements result in judgments engaging Article 10 BOR; therefore redaction of judgments is exceptional and requires cogent evidence demonstrating necessity. The Commission failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify redaction of sales and turnover figures and provided only conjectural evidence for wholesale redaction of individual names. Consequently the Tribunal refused broad redaction of financial figures, required individual names in Statements to be replaced by descriptive identifiers (eg 'an employee of X Limited') unless specific evidence justified otherwise, accepted the agreed facts and imposed the agreed declarations, pecuniary penalties...

Citation
[2023] HKCT 1
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; 1st Respondent: Quadient Technologies Hong Kong Limited; 2nd Respondent: Quadient International Supply Limited; 3rd Respondent: Toppan Forms (Hong Kong) Limited; 4th Respondent: Smartech Business Systems (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2023
Case Number
CTEA1/2021
Procedural Posture
Competition Enforcement (first Conduct Rule) / Kam Kwong Procedure Tribunal Decision on Agreed Liability, Penalties and Confidentiality Applications
Outcome
Tribunal accepted the Kam Kwong agreed facts and made declarations that each respondent contravened section 6 of the Competition Ordinance; imposed the agreed pecuniary penalties and orders for payment of investigation costs and one‑third allocation of the Applicant's costs; refused wholesale redaction of...
Legal Topics
First Conduct Rule (section 6), Confidentiality and Redaction, Kam Kwong (consent Settlement) Procedure, Pecuniary Penalties (section 93), Recovery of Investigation Costs (section 96)
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Administrative / Tribunal Procedure Constitutional Law First Conduct Rule (section 6) Confidentiality and Redaction Kam Kwong (consent Settlement) Procedure Pecuniary Penalties (section 93) Recovery of Investigation Costs (section 96)

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Quadient Technologies Hong Kong Limited

1st Respondent

Quadient International Supply Limited

2nd Respondent

Toppan Forms (Hong Kong) Limited

3rd Respondent

Smartech Business Systems (Hong Kong) Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Competition Enforcement (first Conduct Rule) / Kam Kwong Procedure Tribunal Decision on Agreed Liability, Penalties and Confidentiality Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit redaction of price information, employee identities and non-party identities from Statements of Agreed Facts and the public judgment
  2. 2 Whether sales and turnover figures should be redacted
  3. 3 Whether the Kam Kwong agreed settlements demonstrate contraventions and whether the agreed penalties and costs are appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that Kam Kwong settlements result in judgments engaging Article 10 BOR; therefore redaction of judgments is exceptional and requires cogent evidence demonstrating necessity. The Commission failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify redaction of sales and turnover figures and provided only conjectural evidence for wholesale redaction of individual names. Consequently the Tribunal refused broad redaction of financial figures, required individual names in Statements to be replaced by descriptive identifiers (eg 'an employee of X Limited') unless specific evidence justified otherwise, accepted the agreed facts and imposed the agreed declarations, pecuniary penalties...

Court Disposition

Tribunal accepted the Kam Kwong agreed facts and made declarations that each respondent contravened section 6 of the Competition Ordinance; imposed the agreed pecuniary penalties and orders for payment of investigation costs and one‑third allocation of the Applicant's costs; refused wholesale redaction of...

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have contravened the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance
  • 1st and 2nd Respondents to pay to the Government a pecuniary penalty of HK$1,399,000 pursuant to section 93 of the Ordinance within 14 days and provide documentary evidence of payment to the Applicant within 7 days of payment