High Court upholds CCS ruling against warehouse operators

Two operators infringed competition rules by sharing surcharge plans with rivals.

The Singapore High Court has reinstated the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore’s (CCS) finding that two warehouse operators infringed competition law by exchanging information on intended surcharges with competitors.

The court allowed the commission's appeal against the Competition Appeal Board’s (CAB) decision, restoring the regulator’s finding that CNL Logistic Solutions Pte Ltd (CNL) and Gilmon Transportation & Warehousing Pte Ltd (Gilmon) infringed Section 34 of the Competition Act 2004.

The High Court found that CNL and Gilmon exchanged information on competitors’ pricing strategies and intentions on whether to impose an “FTZ Surcharge.” 

CCS said the companies used the information in negotiations with customers. CNL and Gilmon communicated with two other warehouse operators at Keppel Distripark in June 2017 about plans to impose the surcharge at the same price as the largest warehouse operator, it added.

“All four warehouse operators later imposed the same FTZ Surcharge,” CCS said in a statement.

CCS issued an infringement decision on 17 November 2022 and imposed financial penalties totalling $2.8m on the four warehouse operators.

CNL and Gilmon appealed against the decision in January 2023.

In July 2025, the CAB allowed their appeal, stating that CCS had not given sufficient consideration to the economic context, including the companies’ smaller shares of the warehousing market at Keppel Distripark.

CCS appealed the CAB’s decision to the High Court on 30 July 2025. In its judgment dated 30 June 2026, the High Court set aside the CAB’s decision and reinstated CCS’s finding against CNL and Gilmon.

The High Court rejected the companies’ argument that their lack of market power meant their conduct did not affect competition.

It found that the exchange of pricing information was not a casual discussion without impact on competition, but conduct that helped the companies overcome their individual weaknesses and secure customer acceptance of the price increase.

“The High Court’s judgment is an important reminder that businesses must determine their pricing independently. Businesses should not coordinate with competitors or exchange confidential information about future prices or pricing intentions,” said CCS Chief Executive Alvin Koh.

CCS said businesses should take care when exchanging information with competitors, particularly where the information involves confidential or strategic matters such as future prices or planned price changes.

The regulator said companies should ensure employees understand what information they may discuss with competitors, as exchanges of confidential or strategic information may result in financial penalties under the Competition Act.