Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Penalties

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. KAM KWONG ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCT 2
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2018

The Tribunal held that ss91–93 require penalties to be imposed on each legal person involved rather than treating distinct legal persons as a single undertaking for penalty imposition; it rejected the respondents' single‑undertaking argument, accepted the Commission’s penalty methodology subject to a 9% reduction for cooperation for the 3rd Respondent, and imposed individual pecuniary penalties and undertakings in lieu of injunctions plus costs as sought.
22 Jul 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. KAM KWONG ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2018

The Tribunal rejected a subcontractor one‑third discount and a 25% uplift absent evidence of pervasive industry practice, endorsed the four-step penalty methodology, applied a 12% cooperation reduction to the 2nd respondent (more than the Commission’s 10% but less than the respondent’s request), accepted a specific undertaking from the 2nd respondent in lieu of a permanent injunction, and imposed a three‑year director disqualification on the 4th respondent under sections 101–103.
16 Mar 2011

LAM HON NAM v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM HON NAM v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV36/2010

The Tribunal's findings that the applicant communicated price‑sensitive information to Silvia Chan were supported by admissions, phone records and the timing and pattern of her transactions; those factual inferences were open to the Tribunal and properly upheld on appeal, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 Mar 2003

HKSAR v. JOY EXPRESS LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. JOY EXPRESS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA5/2003

Given the size, dead weight, wind load, manner of fixation and the potential to overstress and cause imminent danger to the parent building, the metal advertising structures amounted to additions constituting 'building works' under s.2 of the Buildings Ordinance; consequently the appellant's conviction for failing to comply with a s.24(1) order under s.40(1B)(b) was valid and the appeal is dismissed.
17 Oct 2000

WILLIAM FUNG WAI KWONG v. THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL

Citation

WILLIAM FUNG WAI KWONG v. THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2000

The appellant failed to show special circumstances or a sufficient risk of rendering any eventual success nugatory; he had not demonstrated inability to pay or that payment would prevent effective relief on a successful appeal, no affidavit of means was filed, and reputational or health concerns do not justify a stay; therefore the discretion to grant a stay was properly exercised and refusal was upheld.
16 Apr 1999

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. SOLICITORS

Citation

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. SOLICITORS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/1999

The Tribunal acted within its discretion in imposing identical fines on each partner because each had voluntarily accepted joint responsibility; the fines were within the established range and there was no error of principle warranting appellate interference, and the costs order is primarily for the Tribunal to clarify.
22 Jan 1999

CHAN MIN CHING t/a CHAN SIU WAH HERBALIST CLINIC v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHAN MIN CHING t/a CHAN SIU WAH HERBALIST CLINIC v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA6/1998

The Board of Review, being a creature of statute, has no power to extend the one month appeal period prescribed by s.82B for assessments to additional tax; s.66(1A) does not supply such power because it is limited to s.64 assessments; therefore the late lodged notice of appeal was incompetent and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Apr 1989

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY

Citation

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP573/1989

The court held that notices issued under s.9 were valid despite the alternative wording because the notices were clearly aimed at an existing nuisance and any omission was one of particularity. Conversely, s.30 must be read in light of its enumerated grounds (a)-(d): "than need be" is governed by matters of chimney or plant suitability, construction, maintenance or wear, not by the Authority's unfettered value judgment about acceptable emissions; accordingly the Chairman erred in construing s.30 to allow prohibition based solely on the Authority's value judgment and his decision was quashed i…