SHELL HONG KONG LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

SHELL HONG KONG LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

The Tribunal dismissed Meyer’s disputed amendment to plead a wider cartel as abuse of process for lack of particulars and inconsistency with pleaded facts; refused Meyer’s FBP applications against Taching and Shell as unnecessary or fishing; dismissed the redaction application and upheld Shell’s limited redactions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCT 2
Parties
Plaintiff (cta 1/2018): Taching Petroleum Company Limited; Plaintiff (cta 2/2018): Shell Hong Kong Limited; Defendant: Meyer Aluminium Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Case Number
CTA2/2018
Procedural Posture
Competition Tribunal Proceedings (transferred Defence From High Court) / Interlocutory — Applications for Amendment, Further and Better Particulars, Expert Evidence and Redaction/disclosure
Outcome
Disputed amendment dismissed; other minor/clerical amendments allowed; Taching and Shell FBP summonses dismissed; limited expert economic evidence permitted on parallelism issues only; redaction summons dismissed; discovery summons dismissed (no order on costs); directions given for expert timetable; costs awarded...
Legal Topics
Price Fixing, Information Exchange, Concerted Practice, Pleadings Amendment, Further and Better Particulars, Expert Economic Evidence, Document Redaction and Disclosure
Source Language
en
Competition Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Discovery Law Antitrust Litigation Price Fixing Information Exchange Concerted Practice +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taching Petroleum Company Limited

Plaintiff (cta 1/2018)

Shell Hong Kong Limited

Plaintiff (cta 2/2018)

Meyer Aluminium Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Tribunal Proceedings (transferred Defence From High Court) / Interlocutory — Applications for Amendment, Further and Better Particulars, Expert Evidence and Redaction/disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parallel and identical pricing by Taching and Shell establishes an agreement or concerted practice under the First Conduct Rule
  2. 2 Whether Meyer may amend its defence to plead a wider cartel involving other suppliers/third parties based on the Sinopec–Taching agreement
  3. 3 Whether further and better particulars requested by Meyer are necessary for fair disposal or are fishing exercises

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed Meyer’s disputed amendment to plead a wider cartel as abuse of process for lack of particulars and inconsistency with pleaded facts; refused Meyer’s FBP applications against Taching and Shell as unnecessary or fishing; dismissed the redaction application and upheld Shell’s limited redactions as irrelevant/confidential; granted limited leave to adduce economic expert evidence confined to the parallelism issue (market structure, similarity of underlying cost factors, degree of transparency of list prices and uniformity of list price changes 2011–June 2017) with a staged timetable for reports; reserved costs in part and ordered costs where specified.

Court Disposition

Disputed amendment dismissed; other minor/clerical amendments allowed; Taching and Shell FBP summonses dismissed; limited expert economic evidence permitted on parallelism issues only; redaction summons dismissed; discovery summons dismissed (no order on costs); directions given for expert timetable; costs awarded...

Orders

  • Disputed amendment to Meyer’s Points of Defence dismissed as abuse of process
  • All other proposed amendments (minor/clerical) allowed against Taching and Shell with costs to respective plaintiffs