plaintiff:
  - TACHING PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED

defendant:
  - MEYER ALUMINIUM LIMITED

case_reason: Case management conference regarding procedural matters in Competition Tribunal proceedings transferred from the High Court, where Meyer raised a defence alleging that Taching and Shell colluded in price fixing in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance.

judgment_summary: This was a case management conference for Competition Tribunal Action No 1 of 2018, which was transferred from the High Court. Meyer raised a common defence in two separate High Court actions (HCA 1929/2017 and HCA 1069/2018) alleging that Taching and Shell colluded in price fixing over the years in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance. The Tribunal addressed several procedural issues including whether Meyer should file an originating notice of application, whether Meyer should file pleadings in the Competition Tribunal, whether Meyer should be given general leave to file a rejoinder, whether the High Court Actions should be consolidated or tried together with the Tribunal proceedings, costs for Shell's application for intervention, and whether there should be separate orders for the Tribunal and the High Court Actions. The Tribunal directed that Meyer need not file an ONA but must file Points of Defence setting out its case on all competition issues. General leave to file a rejoinder was declined. All four sets of proceedings were directed to be listed and heard together for directions until further order. Costs of Shell's application for intervention were ordered to be costs in the cause of the Shell Action.

jurisdiction_code: HKCT

jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

case_object:
  - Procedural directions for Competition Tribunal proceedings
  - Allegations of price fixing in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance

judgment_result:
  - charge: Whether Meyer should file an originating notice of application
    result: Meyer need not file an ONA but must file Points of Defence
  - charge: Whether Meyer should be given general leave to file a rejoinder
    result: Declined
  - charge: Whether proceedings should be consolidated or tried together
    result: All four sets of proceedings to be listed and heard together for directions until further order
  - charge: Costs for Shell's application for intervention in the Taching Action
    result: Costs to be in the cause of the Shell Action
  - charge: Whether there should be separate orders for the Tribunal and the High Court
    result: Separate orders should be drafted for the two different courts

involved_entities:
  - entity_name: Hon Au-Yeung J
    reason: Judge of the Court of First Instance presiding over the case management conference
  - entity_name: G Lam J
    reason: Judge who transferred the Allegation in the Taching Action to the Competition Tribunal on 17 May 2018
  - entity_name: SHELL HONG KONG LIMITED
    reason: Intended Intervener in CTA 1/2018 and plaintiff in HCA 1069/2018, dealer in fuel oil who commenced separate action against Meyer
  - entity_name: Ms Catrina Lam
    reason: Counsel for Taching, instructed by Herbert Tsoi & Partners
  - entity_name: Ms Cherry Xu
    reason: Counsel for Taching, instructed by Herbert Tsoi & Partners
  - entity_name: Herbert Tsoi & Partners
    reason: Law firm representing Taching
  - entity_name: Mr Kenneth K H Lee
    reason: Counsel for Meyer, instructed by Robertsons
  - entity_name: Ms Nana Lui
    reason: Counsel for Meyer, instructed by Robertsons
  - entity_name: Robertsons
    reason: Law firm representing Meyer
  - entity_name: Ms Eva Sit
    reason: Counsel for Shell, instructed by Clifford Chance
  - entity_name: Clifford Chance
    reason: Law firm representing Shell
  - entity_name: Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)
    reason: United Kingdom tribunal whose decision in Agents' Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd [2017] CAT 22 was cited as authority
