|
CTEA 1/2023
[2023] HKCT 8
IN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION NO 1 OF 2023
________________
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
|
|
COMPETITION COMMISSION
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
MULTISOFT LIMITED
|
1st Respondent
|
|
|
MTT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED
|
2nd Respondent
|
|
|
BP ENTERPRISE COMPANY LIMITED
|
3rd Respondent
|
|
|
NOBLE NURSING HOME COMPANY LIMITED
|
4th Respondent
|
|
|
KWEK STUDIO LIMITED
|
5th Respondent
|
|
|
AU YEUNG KIT YEE
|
6th Respondent
|
|
|
(trading as YAT YING HONG and in her personal capacity)
|
|
|
|
FAN SING CHI
|
7th Respondent
|
|
|
TANG WAI CHUN
|
8th Respondent
|
________________
|
Before:
|
Hon Harris J, President of the Competition Tribunal in Chambers
|
|
Date of Hearing:
|
2 August 2023
|
|
Date of Decision:
|
2 August 2023
|
________________
D E C I S I O N
________________
1.
This is the first case management conference of the present competition matter. I have made directions including directions dealing with a confidentiality ring in generally conventional terms. One issue was, however, raised by Mr Chim for the 1
st
and 2
nd
Respondents which I should comment on.
2.
The Commission has proposed that the directions provide for disclosure of documents. The Commission’s draft directions did not include a paragraph requiring the filing by the Commission of a verifying affirmation. Mr Chim submitted that as a matter of principle the Commission should be required to do so in order to provide appropriate procedural protection for the Respondents.
3.
Mr Chim drew my attention to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, in particular r.31.10(5), in the United Kingdom and Practice Direction 31A (Disclosure and Inspection). These provide for the kind of verification that Mr Chim invited the Tribunal to make. He also brought my attention to
Arrow Trading v Edwardian Group Ltd
[1]
in which Mr Justice Blackburne explains in [45] of the judgment that the disclosure statement is intended to bring home to each party their disclosure responsibilities. It is not a mere technicality.
4.
Mr Chim submitted that this was a particularly pertinent consideration in the context of enforcement proceedings because as the Tribunal has confirmed in
Competition Commission v Nutanix Hong Kong Ltd & Ors (No 3)
[2]
, proceedings for pecuniary penalty under the
Ordinance
involve the determination of a criminal charge. Accordingly the additional layer of protection that verification of discovery would provide is appropriate and justified.
5.
Although I understand the arguement, in my view, it is not necessary to routinely order the verification of disclosure by the Commission. My reasons are as follows. In civil litigation general discovery does not give rise to an automatic obligation on the party making disclosure to verify by affirmation or affidavit a list of documents. An order needs to be sought from court.
| 
Back
