Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Price fixing

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

Section 6 of the Ordinance should not be read as extending to conduct that amounts to facilitation (aiding and abetting) by undertakings not active on the relevant market where the Ordinance separately provides for such involvement in section 91; section 91 establishes accessorial liability and requires proof of knowledge and intent; because the Commission did not plead an alternative case under section 91 the enforcement action under section 6 must be dismissed. The Tribunal further held that, had it accepted that section 6 extended to facilitation, the evidence would have established facili…
14 Feb 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL CLEANING SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2021

The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed facts and admissions under the Kam Kwong procedure, applied the RPP methodology with agreed VOS, gravity (20%) and duration multiplier (2.25), imposed uplifts for NCC breaches, director involvement and obstruction, applied cooperation and proportionality discounts (including exceptional reduction for MS on viability grounds), found penalties were within statutory caps and not manifestly excessive, and therefore entered consent declarations, pecuniary penalties, disqualification orders, costs and payment/guarantee arrangements as agreed.
4 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCT 3
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

Because the 4th Respondent disputes material factual allegations central to the Commission's case, the Tribunal cannot dispose of the 4th Respondent's liability by the Kam Kwong procedure without an application and agreement of the parties; accordingly the Tribunal made directions by agreement for the contested 2nd and 3rd Respondents but made no directions for the 4th Respondent and scheduled a further case management conference on 2 September 2022 to determine confidentiality redactions and what further directions are necessary if the parties do not agree a procedure or an application is no…
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.
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 Jul 2020

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCT 5
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2019

R1's objection lacked merit and, having withdrawn its submission, R1 must bear the costs occasioned by that objection; costs follow the event and the claimed quantum is reduced to amounts assessed by the Tribunal (HK$200,000 to the Applicant; HK$90,000 in aggregate allowed for R4, R6 and R7; HK$200 to each of R2, R3, R8 and R9).
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…
17 May 2019

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCT 3
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2017

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the 10 Appointed DCs entered into and implemented both a Floor Allocation Arrangement (market sharing by floor) and a Package Price Arrangement (joint flyer with fixed package prices); both arrangements were by their very nature restrictions of competition by object (market allocation and price fixing) within s6; the respondents who relied on Schedule 1 s1 bore the persuasive burden to prove the efficiency defence on the balance of probabilities (presumption of innocence engaged but the reverse onus is proportionate); the asserted efficiencies were not…