plaintiff:
- Competition Commission
defendant:
- QUANTR LIMITED
- CHEUNG MAN KIT
jurisdiction_code: HKCT
jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
case_location:
- 香港特別行政區
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
case_reason: >-
  Competition Commission claims a pecuniary penalty from the 1st Respondent for contravening the First
  Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619), with the 2nd Respondent being
case_object:
- pecuniary penalty
judgment_result:
- charge: 1st Respondent's involvement in an agreement or concerted practice (liability issue)
  result: Allowed. The court found that the 1st Respondent engaged in price-fixing with B Co, as evidenced
    by lowering its quotation for Item (2) based on information exchanged.
- charge: 2nd Respondent's involvement in an agreement or concerted practice (liability issue)
  result: Allowed. The court found that the 2nd Respondent was involved in the price-fixing agreement
    with B Co, as he initiated and acted upon the information exchange.
- charge: Calculation of pecuniary penalty for the 1st Respondent (quantum issue)
  result: Allowed. The court agreed to impose a pecuniary penalty of HK$37,702.26 on the 1st Respondent
    based on the financial information and methodology provided.
judgment_summary: >-
  In CTEA1/2020, the Competition Commission alleged Quantr Limited (Quantr) and Cheung Man Kit contravened
  the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance. The court found Quantr engaged
  in price-fixing with B Co, and Cheung initiated information exchange leading to price-fixing. A HK$37,702.26
  pecuniary penalty was imposed on Quantr.
involved_entities:
- entity_name: Hon Linda Chan J
  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
- entity_name: Competition Commission
  reason: Applicant in the case.
- entity_name: Quantr Limited
  reason: 1st Respondent in the case.
- entity_name: Cheung Man Kit
  reason: 2nd Respondent in the case.
- entity_name: MinterEllison LLP
  reason: Solicitors for the applicant.
- entity_name: Humphrey & Associates
  reason: Solicitors for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
- entity_name: Competition Tribunal
  reason: The tribunal that made the judgment.
- entity_name: Carecraft Construction Co Ltd
  reason: Case cited in paragraph 13, articulated summary procedure principles.
- entity_name: Re Carecraft Construction Co Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172
  reason: Case cited in paragraph 13, articulated summary procedure principles.
