COMPETITION COMMISSION v. GRAY LINE TOURS OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. GRAY LINE TOURS OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

The Tribunal holds that the W Hing structured methodology applies where there is turnover directly or indirectly related to the contravention; Prudential’s licence income (HK$171,290) qualifies as turnover related to the contravention and the Commission failed to prove exceptional circumstances to depart from the structured methodology or that turnover was not a genuine proxy for economic effect; accordingly the structured methodology is used and the Tribunal accepts Prudential's approach, indicating a pecuniary penalty equivalent to the economic metric of HK$171,290 is appropriate in the circumstances.

Citation
[2025] HKCT 2
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; 1st Respondent: Gray Line Tours of Hong Kong Limited; 2nd Respondent: Harbour Plaza 8 Degrees Limited; 3rd Respondent: Harbour Plaza Hotel Management Limited; 4th Respondent: Prudential Hotel (BVI) Limited; 5th Respondent: Tak How Investment Limited (trading as Intercontinental Grand Stanford Hong Kong); 6th Respondent: Wu Siu Ieng Michael
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
CTEA1/2022
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action Under the Competition Ordinance (cap. 619) / Judgment (penalty Assessment); Liability Admitted by 4th Respondent
Outcome
Declarations that Prudential contravened the First Conduct Rule; penalty assessment to be determined by agreement in accordance with structured methodology (Judge indicated HK$171,290 appropriate); costs order nisi in favour of Prudential in relation to the hearing on 29 November 2023.
Legal Topics
Price Fixing, First Conduct Rule (section 6), Pecuniary Penalty Assessment, Facilitation Liability, Penalty Methodology (structured Methodology V Lump Sum)
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Price Fixing First Conduct Rule (section 6) Pecuniary Penalty Assessment Facilitation Liability Penalty Methodology (structured Methodology V Lump Sum)

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Gray Line Tours of Hong Kong Limited

1st Respondent

Harbour Plaza 8 Degrees Limited

2nd Respondent

Harbour Plaza Hotel Management Limited

3rd Respondent

Prudential Hotel (BVI) Limited

4th Respondent

Tak How Investment Limited (trading as Intercontinental Grand Stanford Hong Kong)

5th Respondent

Wu Siu Ieng Michael

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action Under the Competition Ordinance (cap. 619) / Judgment (penalty Assessment); Liability Admitted by 4th Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prudential actively procured or actively provided information to implement the price‑fixing arrangement
  2. 2 Whether Prudential had an interest in monitoring or policing compliance with the arrangement
  3. 3 Whether the structured methodology from W Hing applies or an exceptional lump‑sum approach is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal holds that the W Hing structured methodology applies where there is turnover directly or indirectly related to the contravention; Prudential’s licence income (HK$171,290) qualifies as turnover related to the contravention and the Commission failed to prove exceptional circumstances to depart from the structured methodology or that turnover was not a genuine proxy for economic effect; accordingly the structured methodology is used and the Tribunal accepts Prudential's approach, indicating a pecuniary penalty equivalent to the economic metric of HK$171,290 is appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Declarations that Prudential contravened the First Conduct Rule; penalty assessment to be determined by agreement in accordance with structured methodology (Judge indicated HK$171,290 appropriate); costs order nisi in favour of Prudential in relation to the hearing on 29 November 2023.

Orders

  • Declare that Prudential Hotel (BVI) Limited contravened section 6 (First Conduct Rule) of the Competition Ordinance
  • Commission to attempt to agree terms of order (including pecuniary penalty and compliance programme) with Prudential; failing agreement the matter to be listed for further case management conference