45 lines
2.4 KiB
YAML
45 lines
2.4 KiB
YAML
plaintiff: []
|
|
defendant:
|
|
- Quantr Limited
|
|
- Cheung Man Kit
|
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCT
|
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
|
|
case_location:
|
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
|
case_reason: "Competition Commission claims declarations and orders against the 1st Respondent for contravening\
|
|
\ a "
|
|
case_object:
|
|
- pecuniary penalty
|
|
- declarations of contravention
|
|
judgment_result:
|
|
- charge: Agreement or concerted practice between the 1st Respondent and B Co (liability issue)
|
|
result: Allowed. The court found that there was an agreement to exchange future price sensitive information
|
|
and discuss who would win the Bidding Exercise, which had the object of preventing, restricting, or
|
|
distorting competition.
|
|
- charge: 2nd Respondent's involvement in the contravention (liability issue)
|
|
result: Allowed. The court determined that the 2nd Respondent was involved in the agreement or concerted
|
|
practice as he was the sole director and shareholder of the 1st Respondent, initiated the Information
|
|
Exchange, and acted on it by lowering the quotation for Item (2).
|
|
- charge: Pecuniary penalty calculation (quantum issue)
|
|
result: Allowed. The court agreed with the Commission's recommendation to impose a pecuniary penalty
|
|
of HK$37,702.26 on the 1st Respondent based on its admission of contravening the First Conduct Rule
|
|
under s.6 of the Ordinance.
|
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
|
In Competition Commission v Quantr Limited & Another [2020] HKCT 10, Hon Linda Chan J declared that
|
|
Quantr Limited had contravened the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance and
|
|
Cheung Man Kit was involved in this contravention. The court found evidence of an agreement to交换竞
|
|
involved_entities:
|
|
- entity_name: Hon Linda Chan J
|
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
|
- entity_name: Harris J
|
|
reason: Served as lead judge in Competition Commission v Kam Kwong Engineering Company Limited & ors
|
|
[2020] 4 HKLRD 61, at §§6-17, articulated the justifications for adopting the Carecraft procedure.
|
|
- entity_name: Godfrey Lam J
|
|
reason: Served as lead judge in Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction Company Limited & ors
|
|
[2020] 2 HKLRD 1229, at §§46-74, articulated the approach of the Tribunal in determining the amount
|
|
of penalty.
|
|
- entity_name: MinterEllison LLP
|
|
reason: Solicitors for the applicant.
|
|
- entity_name: Humphrey & Associates
|
|
reason: Solicitors for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
|