The Competition Tribunal has delivered its judgment in the first private competition action in Hong Kong SAR. By rejecting the claims of an alleged cartel in the supply of diesel, this judgment cements the importance of claims based on clear factual evidence and avoids private parties making logical leaps through implausible inferences. It also delivers a clear message that parallel pricing, on its own, is a sign of normal competitive behaviour. In a strongly worded judgment (see here), the Tribunal rejected allegations that Shell Hong Kong and Taching Petroleum had engaged in a 6-year price fixing arrangement in the supply of diesel. This case stems from a contractual claim by Taching and Shell against Meyer for outstanding debts of unpaid bills of industrial diesel sold to Meyer.
Share on
|
|
The Hong Kong Competition Tribunal delivers its first judgment in a private enforcement action, rejecting claims of an alleged cartel in the supply of diesel (Shell Hong Kong / Meyer Aluminium)
This article has been nominated for the 2022 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
