Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23) [2023] ZACT 23 (8 May 2023)

Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23) [2023] ZACT 23 (8 May 2023)

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of a prohibited practice under section 8(1)(d)(ii) or section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act. While Audatex is prima facie dominant in the relevant estimation market, the evidence did not show that the service provided was 'scarce' or that Apollo's removal from the platform would exclude it from the parts procurement market. Alternative solutions for insurer customers were available, and there was insufficient evidence of anti-competitive effects or irreparable harm. Audatex's concern regarding protection of confidential information from a direct competitor was found to be a legitimate justification for its...

Citation
[2023] ZACT 23
Parties
Applicant: Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Motomatix (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Competition Commission
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2023
Case Number
IR198Mar23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Under Section 49 C of the Competition Act
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed.
Judges
J Wilson, M Mazwai, L Mncube
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Refusal to Supply, Interim Relief, Exclusionary Conduct, Anti Competitive Effects
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Abuse of Dominance Refusal to Supply Interim Relief Exclusionary Conduct Anti Competitive Effects

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Motomatix (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Competition Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Under Section 49 C of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Audatex's termination of Apollo's access to its platform constitutes a prohibited refusal to supply under section 8(1)(d)(ii) or exclusionary conduct under section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the service provided by Audatex is 'scarce' within the meaning of section 8(1)(d)(ii).
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to supply is economically feasible and justified by protection of confidential information.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of a prohibited practice under section 8(1)(d)(ii) or section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act. While Audatex is prima facie dominant in the relevant estimation market, the evidence did not show that the service provided was 'scarce' or that Apollo's removal from the platform would exclude it from the parts procurement market. Alternative solutions for insurer customers were available, and there was insufficient evidence of anti-competitive effects or irreparable harm. Audatex's concern regarding protection of confidential information from a direct competitor was found to be a legitimate justification for its...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for interim relief is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.