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

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

Because the 4th Respondent disputes material factual allegations central to the Commission's case, the Tribunal cannot dispose of the 4th Respondent's liability by the Kam Kwong procedure without an application and agreement of the parties; accordingly the Tribunal made directions by agreement for the contested 2nd and 3rd Respondents but made no directions for the 4th Respondent and scheduled a further case management conference on 2 September 2022 to determine confidentiality redactions and what further directions are necessary if the parties do not agree a procedure or an application is not made.

Citation
[2022] HKCT 3
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
4 August 2022
Case Number
CTEA1/2022
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action / Case Management Conference; Reasons for Decision (21 Jul 2022); Further CMC Scheduled 2 Sep 2022
Outcome
Directions made by agreement for further conduct of the case against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents; no directions made for the 4th Respondent; further case management conference listed for 2 September 2022 to address confidentiality and potential directions if parties do not agree or apply.
Legal Topics
Price Fixing, Concerted Practices, Accessory Liability, Confidentiality in Proceedings, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Antitrust Administrative Law Civil Procedure Price Fixing Concerted Practices Accessory Liability Confidentiality in Proceedings +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
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 / Case Management Conference; Reasons for Decision (21 Jul 2022); Further CMC Scheduled 2 Sep 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 4th Respondent contravened the First Conduct Rule
  2. 2 Whether the 4th Respondent actively procured Tink Labs to implement an anti-competitive arrangement and provided pricing information
  3. 3 Whether the Kam Kwong procedure is appropriate to dispose of the 4th Respondent's liability by agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 4th Respondent disputes material factual allegations central to the Commission's case, the Tribunal cannot dispose of the 4th Respondent's liability by the Kam Kwong procedure without an application and agreement of the parties; accordingly the Tribunal made directions by agreement for the contested 2nd and 3rd Respondents but made no directions for the 4th Respondent and scheduled a further case management conference on 2 September 2022 to determine confidentiality redactions and what further directions are necessary if the parties do not agree a procedure or an application is not made.

Court Disposition

Directions made by agreement for further conduct of the case against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents; no directions made for the 4th Respondent; further case management conference listed for 2 September 2022 to address confidentiality and potential directions if parties do not agree or apply.

Orders

  • Directions by agreement for the further conduct of the case against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents
  • No directions made for the 4th Respondent pending agreement or application to determine liability; parties to seek agreement or one party to apply to the Tribunal