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

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

Rule 30(1) permits representation by counsel, by solicitors with CFI rights, or by other persons with leave, but for trials the Tribunal should follow CFI practice where only barristers or solicitors with higher rights ordinarily conduct trials; accordingly leave for a solicitor without higher rights to conduct the trial was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
[2023] 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
23 June 2023
Case Number
CTEA1/2022
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Be Represented at Trial (right of Audience)
Outcome
Application for leave refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Audience, Tribunal Procedure, Representation at Trial, Interpretation of Rule 30, Competition Ordinance S144
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Right of Audience Tribunal Procedure Representation at Trial Interpretation of Rule 30 Competition Ordinance S144

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 1
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 / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Be Represented at Trial (right of Audience)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor without higher rights of audience may be granted leave under Rule 30(1)(b)(ii) to represent a party at a trial before the Competition Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should follow the Court of First Instance practice on representation at trials
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of section 144(1) and (3) of the Competition Ordinance in relation to Tribunal procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 30(1) permits representation by counsel, by solicitors with CFI rights, or by other persons with leave, but for trials the Tribunal should follow CFI practice where only barristers or solicitors with higher rights ordinarily conduct trials; accordingly leave for a solicitor without higher rights to conduct the trial was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to costs