Agri Wire (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner of the Competition Commission and Others (63/CR/Sep09) [2011] ZACT 17; [2011] 1 CPLR 175 (CT) (28 March 2011)

Agri Wire (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner of the Competition Commission and Others (63/CR/Sep09) [2011] ZACT 17; [2011] 1 CPLR 175 (CT) (28 March 2011)

The Tribunal found that the stay application raised novel jurisdictional issues not previously decided. There is a dispute as to whether the Tribunal or the High Court has jurisdiction to review the Commission's Corporate Leniency Policy and the grant of conditional immunity. Given the pending review application before the South Gauteng High Court, and the possibility that the High Court may refer the matter back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered it prudent not to make any findings or decisions on the substantive issues in the context of the stay application. The Tribunal therefore ordered that the complaint proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the High Court review, and...

Citation
[2011] ZACT 17
Parties
Applicant: Agri Wire (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Agri Wire Upington (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Commissioner of the Competition Commission; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industry; Respondent: Consolidated Wire Industries (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Cape Gate (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Allens Meshco (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Hendok (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Wire Force (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Agri Wire North (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Cape Wire (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Forest Wire (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Independent Galvanising (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Associated Wire Industries (Pty) Limited t/a Meshrite; Respondent: Competition Tribunal
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2011
Case Number
63/CR/Sep09
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Complaint Proceedings Pending Review in High Court
Outcome
Proceedings before the Tribunal are stayed pending the outcome of the review application in the South Gauteng High Court.
Judges
Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Andreas Wessels, Takalani Madima
Legal Topics
Corporate Leniency Policy, Conditional Immunity, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Review Under Paja, Admissibility of Evidence
Competition Law Administrative Law Corporate Leniency Policy Conditional Immunity Jurisdiction of Tribunal Review Under Paja Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agri Wire (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Agri Wire Upington (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Commissioner of the Competition Commission

Respondent

Minister of Trade and Industry

Respondent

Consolidated Wire Industries (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Cape Gate (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Allens Meshco (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Hendok (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Wire Force (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Agri Wire North (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Cape Wire (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Forest Wire (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Independent Galvanising (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Associated Wire Industries (Pty) Limited t/a Meshrite

Respondent

Competition Tribunal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Complaint Proceedings Pending Review in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the review application regarding the Commission's Corporate Leniency Policy.
  2. 2 Whether the complaint proceedings before the Tribunal should be stayed pending the outcome of the High Court review.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence obtained through the Corporate Leniency Policy and the grant of conditional immunity is admissible and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the stay application raised novel jurisdictional issues not previously decided. There is a dispute as to whether the Tribunal or the High Court has jurisdiction to review the Commission's Corporate Leniency Policy and the grant of conditional immunity. Given the pending review application before the South Gauteng High Court, and the possibility that the High Court may refer the matter back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered it prudent not to make any findings or decisions on the substantive issues in the context of the stay application. The Tribunal therefore ordered that the complaint proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the High Court review, and...

Court Disposition

Proceedings before the Tribunal are stayed pending the outcome of the review application in the South Gauteng High Court.

Orders

  • The proceedings before the Tribunal are stayed pending the outcome of the review application currently before the South Gauteng High Court.
  • There is no order as to costs.