COMPETITION COMMISSION v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

The Commission's 14-day delay in applying for leave to appeal costs was not objectively insubstantial or wholly excusable and, having failed to show a real prospect of success on the merits of the costs appeal or sufficient justification for three counsel, the extension of time and leave were refused; costs decisions are discretionary and the Tribunal's refusal of a certificate for three counsel did not amount to an error of principle.

Citation
[2020] HKCT 6
Parties
Applicant: COMPETITION COMMISSION; 1st Respondent: W. HING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (永興聯合建築有限公司); 2nd Respondent: SUN SPARK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (裕輝建築有限公司); 3rd Respondent: LAU CHUNG YAN and LAU CHUN KWOK (in partnership trading as MAU HANG PAINTING & DECORATION CO (茂恒油漆裝飾公司)); 4th Respondent: CHEUNG YIU FAI DANNY and WONG TUNG HOI (in partnership trading as TAI DOU BUILDING CONTRACTOR (大道建築公司)); 5th Respondent: KAM KEE MACHINE ELECTRICAL IRON WORKS COMPANY LIMITED (金記機電鐵器工程有限公司); 6th Respondent: HUI TAK CHEONG KANLY and HUI TAK ON BRYAN (in partnership trading as HIP YICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (協益建築公司)); 7th Respondent: SUEN SIK KAU (trading as TAI WAH CIVIL ENGINEERING (泰華土木工程)); 8th Respondent: POON WAI WOON and POON KAI WO JULIO (in partnership trading as WAI SUN IRON & DECORATION CO (維新鐵器裝修公司)); 9th Respondent: YEUNG KWOK YEE (trading as WIDE PROJECT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO (百達建築工程公司)); 10th Respondent: LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING CO LIMITED (聯合裝飾工程有限公司)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Case Number
CTEA2/2017
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Against Costs Decision and Related Interlocutory Determination
Outcome
Commission's application for extension of time/leave to appeal in relation to costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Pecuniary Penalty, Certificate for Counsel, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Discretionary Costs
Source Language
EN
Competition Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Administrative Law Pecuniary Penalty Certificate for Counsel Extension of Time Leave to Appeal +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COMPETITION COMMISSION

Applicant

W. HING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (永興聯合建築有限公司)

1st Respondent

SUN SPARK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (裕輝建築有限公司)

2nd Respondent

LAU CHUNG YAN and LAU CHUN KWOK (in partnership trading as MAU HANG PAINTING & DECORATION CO (茂恒油漆裝飾公司))

3rd Respondent

CHEUNG YIU FAI DANNY and WONG TUNG HOI (in partnership trading as TAI DOU BUILDING CONTRACTOR (大道建築公司))

4th Respondent

KAM KEE MACHINE ELECTRICAL IRON WORKS COMPANY LIMITED (金記機電鐵器工程有限公司)

5th Respondent

HUI TAK CHEONG KANLY and HUI TAK ON BRYAN (in partnership trading as HIP YICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (協益建築公司))

6th Respondent

SUEN SIK KAU (trading as TAI WAH CIVIL ENGINEERING (泰華土木工程))

7th Respondent

POON WAI WOON and POON KAI WO JULIO (in partnership trading as WAI SUN IRON & DECORATION CO (維新鐵器裝修公司))

8th Respondent

YEUNG KWOK YEE (trading as WIDE PROJECT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO (百達建築工程公司))

9th Respondent

LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING CO LIMITED (聯合裝飾工程有限公司)

10th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Competition Tribunal Enforcement Action / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time Against Costs Decision and Related Interlocutory Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission was entitled to extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a costs-only decision
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing a certificate for three counsel
  3. 3 Whether the Commission demonstrated a real prospect of success to justify out-of-time leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission's 14-day delay in applying for leave to appeal costs was not objectively insubstantial or wholly excusable and, having failed to show a real prospect of success on the merits of the costs appeal or sufficient justification for three counsel, the extension of time and leave were refused; costs decisions are discretionary and the Tribunal's refusal of a certificate for three counsel did not amount to an error of principle.

Court Disposition

Commission's application for extension of time/leave to appeal in relation to costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Order nisi for costs in favour of the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th respondents, to be taxed if not agreed