Appeals 2012

Appellants:

Calvin Cheng Ern Lee

Date Received: Notice of Appeal received on 20 January 2012

Summary of CCS Decision that Appeal Relates:

1. On 23 November 2011, the Competition Commission of Singapore (the “CCS”) decided that 11 modelling agencies (the “AMIP agencies”) in Singapore and their association, the AMIP, had engaged in price-fixing of the rates of modelling services in contravention of Section 34 of the Competition Act.

2. The CCS decided that the Appellant was a central figure in the infringing activities who had given instructions to the AMIP agencies on how to mask the fact that this was a collective action to raise rates so as to avoid attracting attention and complaints. 

The full text of the Infringement Decision may be found at the following URL:

Infringement Decision [PDF, 8.2 MB]

Relief Sought by Appellant

1. For the findings in the Infringement Decision relating to the Appellant initiating the infringing activities and being a central figure in the said activities to be set aside.

2. Order for the CCS to pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Appellants :

Bees Work Casting Pte Ltd

Diva Models (S) Pte Ltd

Impact Models Studio

Looque Models Singapore Pte Ltd

Date Received: Notice of Appeal received on 20 January 2012

Summary of CCS Decision that Appeal Relates:

1. On 23 November 2011, the Competition Commission of Singapore (the “CCS”) decided that 11 modelling agencies in Singapore, including the Appellants (the “AMIP agencies”), and their association, the AMIP, had engaged in price-fixing of the rates of modelling services in contravention of Section 34 of the Competition Act.

2. The CCS’ investigations revealed that one of the AMIP’s main objectives was to collectively raise the rates for modelling services charged by the AMIP agencies. The AMIP had been established in early 2005, and the AMIP agencies continued to meet, discuss and agree upon the prices for modelling services until the CCS conducted inspections in July 2009.

3. The CCS concluded that the AMIP agencies had engaged in price-fixing on a wide variety of modelling services, including editorials, advertorials, fashion shows and media loading usage. Customers of the AMIP who were affected included publishers, photographers, show choreographers, show organisers and fashion labels.

4. Pursuant to Section 69(2)(d) of the Competition Act, the CCS has imposed the following penalties on the Appellants:

S/No. Party Period of infringement Penalty

1) Bees Work 1 Jan 06 to 17 Jul 09 S$44,112

2) Diva 1 Jan 06 to 17 Jul 09 S$72,891

3) Impact 1 Jan 06 to 17 Jul 09 S$10,508

4) Looque 1 Jan 06 to 17 Jul 09 S$31,241

The full text of the Infringement Decision may be found at the following URL:

Infringement Decision [PDF, 8.2 MB]

Relief Sought by Appellant

1. Reduction in Financial Penalties.

2. Order for the CCS to pay the Appellants’ costs of the appeal.

Appellants: Ave Management Pte Ltd

Date Received: Notice of Appeal received on 25 January 2012

Summary of CCS Decision that Appeal Relates:

On 23 November 2011, the Competition Commission of Singapore (“CCS”) issued an infringement decision to the Appellant (“Infringement Decision”), which found that the Appellant, together with other modeling agencies, had been involved in an agreement and/or concerted practice to fix the rates of modeling services in Singapore, which had as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. The Appellant was directed to pay a financial penalty of S$132,315.

The full text of the Infringement Decision may be found at the following URL :

https://www.ccs.gov.sg/media-and-events/newsroom/announcements-and-media-releases/cab-dismissed-most-grounds-of-appeal-by-modelling-agencies

Relief Sought by Appellant

1. For the CCS’s Infringement Decision: For the financial penalty imposed on the Appellant to be reduced; and

2. For costs of the Appeal:

   1. For the Appellant to be awarded costs should it be successful in the Appeal;

   2. In the alternative, for each Party to bear its own costs should the Appellant not be successful in its Appeal.