Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

First conduct rule

  • 25 Mar 2025

    COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCT 3
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTEA2/2023

    Consolidation was refused because the two proceedings, while overlapping in business activity and one common party, involve distinct facts and risk complicating a combined trial; an order that evidence from one trial stand in the other was refused until witness statements are served; the Commission must provide further and better particulars in the Originating Notice of Application of the proposed pecuniary penalty (amount and methodology including sales value, geographic area, financial years, gravity percentage, duration multiplier, aggravating/mitigating factors), particulars of investigat…

  • 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).

  • 17 May 2019

    COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCT 2
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTEA1/2017

    Applying criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt), the Tribunal found beyond reasonable doubt that Nutanix and BT arranged for dummy bids and that Nutanix, BT and Innovix, and Nutanix and Tech‑21 engaged in agreements or concerted practices whose object was to prevent, restrict or distort competition (and met the statutory definition of bid‑rigging); the agreements were not made known to YWCA and the Commission had reasonable cause to believe at commencement that YWCA did not know, so no warning notice was required; conduct of junior employee (Shek) was held not attributable to Si…

  • 12 Sept 2018

    TACHING PETROLEUM CO, LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 2095
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1929/2017

    Because the defendant advanced a common defence alleging collusion in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance, the court gave effect to the parties' consent and transferred the competition Allegation to the Competition Tribunal, ordered coordinated listing of the High Court actions with the Tribunal for case management, required discovery limited to directly relevant documents and documents referred to in the pleadings, and dispensed with general discovery; pleadings in the High Court shall incorporate those filed in the Tribunal for competition issues.

  • 12 Sept 2018

    TACHING PETROLEUM CO LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

    Citation
    [2018] HKCT 4
    Court
    Competition Tribunal
    Case number
    CTA1/2018

    The Tribunal held Meyer was not required to file an originating notice of application because no relief was sought and the proceedings were transferred from the High Court; Meyer must file Points of Defence complying with CTPD1 §§88-89 setting out competition issues; no general leave to file a rejoinder was granted as premature; all four related proceedings are to be listed and heard together for case management directions; costs of Shell's intervention are to be in the cause of the Shell Action; separate properly drafted orders should be prepared for the Tribunal and the Court of First Insta…