Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Penalty assessment

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. GRAY LINE TOURS OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCT 4
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

The Tribunal ordered that the Commission pay Prudential the costs of and incurred in relation to the determination of the penalty (including the 29 Nov 2023 hearing) and that Prudential pay the Commission the remaining costs of the proceedings; the Tribunal rejected the submission that RHC O 22 sanctioned offers can, as a routine matter, terminate Tribunal enforcement proceedings or automatically attract enhanced indemnity costs/interest; investigation costs under s96 are recoverable where shown to relate to investigation of the person and be reasonable, cannot be taxed by the Registrar under…
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…
22 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴馬仁雄

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA77/2024

The Court upheld the magistrate's finding that the appellant's refusal to provide driver particulars was serious, rejected the appellant's explanation, and held that a HK$5,000 fine was not excessive given the nature of the related careless driving offence and the appellant's multiple prior driving convictions; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
30 Jul 2024

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. MULTISOFT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCT 2
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2023

The Tribunal approved the agreed Kam Kwong settlements and entered declarations of contravention and ordered pecuniary penalties, compliance programmes, costs and a director disqualification where agreed; it held that rule 76 CTR authorises the Tribunal to grant the reliefs sought against defaulting respondents (6th and 7th) in default of response, subject to service and the right to apply to set aside, and applied the W Hing methodology and cooperation discounts to determine and accept the penalties agreed or recommended.
19 Jul 2023

香港特別行政區訴容艷莊

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA249/2021

Pouring rice into public tree pits constituted the act of discarding waste under the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation; the magistrate's factual findings and credibility assessments were rational and not to be disturbed on appeal; the HK$4,000 fine was not manifestly excessive.
14 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴劉偉德

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1353
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA364/2019

The appellant's emailed replies and electronic signature did not comply with the RTO s63(4) requirement for a written statement in the specified form and signed original; the Electronic Transactions Ordinance does not override or apply to this statutory requirement in the circumstances because its relevant provisions are inapplicable to such legal process and its application would conflict with the RTO and established practice; accordingly the trial judge correctly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
2 Apr 2015

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR

Citation

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV78/2014

The Court allowed the solicitor's appeal on the second complaint because the Tribunal failed to properly assess and resolve material factual disputes (notably the credible evidence of WFC solicitor Cheng) which showed the settlement on 25 January 2007 was an unconditional payment and did not include terms by which the solicitor would obtain a personal interest; accordingly fraud/deceit was not proved and the 2nd complaint was dismissed. On penalty for the 1st complaint the Court held the Tribunal's fine was clearly wrong: even absent dishonesty the conduct (swapping pages and registering an a…
15 May 2013

LIAOYANG SHUNFENG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNNY GROWTH ENTERPRISES GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIAOYANG SHUNFENG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNNY GROWTH ENTERPRISES GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP667/2013

The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st defendant instituted the second PRC action which covered the same or substantially the same subject matter as the injunctioned PRC Litigation and that both defendants were aware of the Injunction Order; that intentional breach amounted to contempt; accordingly the court committed the defendants for contempt, imposed a fine of HK$350,000 on the 1st defendant and issued a warrant of arrest for the 2nd defendant to secure his attendance for sentencing and ordered indemnity costs with certificate for two counsel.
14 Oct 2011

KWOON CHUNG MOTORS COMPANY LIMITTED v. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWOON CHUNG MOTORS COMPANY LIMITTED v. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL11/2010

The court dismissed the judicial review. Condition 1 is properly construed to mean that operation on more than 2 days within any 30‑day period (whether intermittently or consecutively) triggers the requirement for the Commissioner's prior written approval; s.71 Cap 1 is inapplicable to licence conditions; and the Commissioner and the Tribunal were entitled to take into account previous breaches under the same or other passenger service licences when determining the appropriate sanction under s.31 RTO. Therefore the impugned decisions were lawful and not ultra vires.
26 May 2010

NG CHIU MUI AND ANOTHER v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

NG CHIU MUI AND ANOTHER v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/2009

The appeals were dismissed because the Court held the Tribunal correctly interpreted "actively markets" in the statutory context and was entitled to conclude CHI was actively marketing services to Hong Kong; the Tribunal properly conducted its supervisory review of the SFC's findings (intervening only if the regulator was plainly wrong or the material could not reasonably support the inferences) and its adjustments to penalties were within its permissible discretion.