Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Concerted practice

  • 26 Jul 2023

    COMPETITION COMMISSION v. QUADIENT TECHNOLOGIES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCT 6
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTEA1/2021

    The Tribunal accepted the parties' joint application under Rule 39 to dispose of the enforcement proceedings on agreed facts, accepted the Parties' admissions that between 19 April 2018 and 23 January 2019 the respondents (through their representatives) entered into and gave effect to an agreement and concerted practice to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers in respect of Neopost inserters in Hong Kong in contravention of s6(1) of the Competition Ordinance, that the conduct was serious anti‑competitive conduct, and that the conduct of identified employees was attributable to the corpo…

  • 12 Oct 2021

    SHELL HONG KONG LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCT 2
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTA2/2018

    Meyer failed to prove the alleged agreement or concerted practice to fix prices; the 118 pairs of identical notices did not make collusion the only plausible explanation in the absence of communications and given credible, independent non-collusive explanations from Taching (following Sinopec) and Shell (internal independent pricing policy); expert reports were excluded as irrelevant; on that basis the Alleged Contravention under the First Conduct Rule is not established and Meyer must pay costs to Taching and Shell with post-pleadings costs on indemnity basis.

  • 12 Oct 2021

    TACHING PETROLEUM CO LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCT 2
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTA1/2018

    Meyer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities, with the requisite cogency, that collusion between Taching and Shell was the only plausible explanation for the parallel List Price adjustments; the credible and plausible independent explanations of Taching (following Sinopec) and Shell (internal independent pricing policy and arms-length discounts) prevail; alleged contravention not established and Meyer ordered to pay costs (post-pleadings indemnity basis).

  • 29 May 2020

    TACHING PETROLEUM CO LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

    Citation
    [2020] HKCT 2
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTA1/2018

    The Tribunal dismissed the proposed wider amendment as an abuse of process for lack of particulars and contradiction with existing pleaded case; refused orders for further and better particulars where requests were unnecessary for fair disposal or already answered; granted limited leave for economic expert evidence confined to the Parallelism Issue (market structure, similarity of underlying cost factors, transparency of list prices and uniformity of list price changes for 2011–June 2017) but refused expert evidence on legal/economic context, effect and damages; and dismissed the redaction an…

  • 29 May 2020

    SHELL HONG KONG LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

    Citation
    [2020] HKCT 2
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTA2/2018

    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 t…