Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Price‑fixing

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCT 2
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

The Tribunal holds that the W Hing structured methodology applies where there is turnover directly or indirectly related to the contravention; Prudential’s licence income (HK$171,290) qualifies as turnover related to the contravention and the Commission failed to prove exceptional circumstances to depart from the structured methodology or that turnover was not a genuine proxy for economic effect; accordingly the structured methodology is used and the Tribunal accepts Prudential's approach, indicating a pecuniary penalty equivalent to the economic metric of HK$171,290 is appropriate in the cir…
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…
26 Jul 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCT 7
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

The Tribunal accepted the Statements of Agreed Facts and concluded that the documented communications and actions established a concerted practice/price‑fixing agreement between Gray Line and Tink Labs facilitated by multiple hotels, constituting a contravention of the First Conduct Rule and serious anti‑competitive conduct. Michael Wu’s role as managing director and active instigator established involvement under s91 and potential unfitness under s102. The summary procedure under Rule 39 was appropriate to dispose of these factual and legal issues and to determine directions including permit…
1 Apr 2010

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI YIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA449/2008

The Court allowed the appeals: an agreement among bidders to pre-allocate stalls and not to compete at a restricted auction, absent aggravating features (fraudulent misrepresentation, deception, intimidation, inducement of breach, or other dishonest means that deceive the victim), does not constitute the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. Criminalisation of such commercial conduct in the absence of aggravating features requires clear legislative provision; therefore the convictions were unsafe and were quashed.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. QUADIENT TECHNOLOGIES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

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

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI YIP AND OTHERS