BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Rogers and Another (NCT 2679/2011(1)(P)) [2012] ZANCT 29 (6 December 2012)

BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Rogers and Another (NCT 2679/2011(1)(P)) [2012] ZANCT 29 (6 December 2012)

The Tribunal found that the transaction in question, being the purchase of the BMW vehicle in August 2008, occurred prior to the effective date of the Consumer Protection Act (1 April 2011). Item 3(1) of Schedule 2 of the CPA expressly excludes such transactions from its ambit, and the retrospective application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ZANCT 29
Parties
Applicant: BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: M Rogers; Respondent: National Consumer Commission
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2012
Case Number
NCT 2679/2011(1)(P)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Compliance Notice Issued Under Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Outcome
The application for review is granted; the compliance notice issued by the National Consumer Commission is cancelled.
Judges
P Beck, N Sephoti, F Manamela
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Compliance Notice Review, Retrospective Application, Condonation, Jurisdiction, Administrative Action
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Compliance Notice Review Retrospective Application Condonation Jurisdiction Administrative Action

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

M Rogers

Respondent

National Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Compliance Notice Issued Under Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compliance notice issued by the National Consumer Commission is valid and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the Consumer Protection Act applies retrospectively to the transaction in question.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of the Commission's answering affidavit should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the transaction in question, being the purchase of the BMW vehicle in August 2008, occurred prior to the effective date of the Consumer Protection Act (1 April 2011). Item 3(1) of Schedule 2 of the CPA expressly excludes such transactions from its ambit, and the retrospective application provisions do not apply as the transaction was not a fixed-term agreement extending beyond the second anniversary of the effective date. The Commission's application for condonation for late filing was refused due to an unsatisfactory and unsubstantiated explanation. As the Commission did not oppose BMW's application and failed to establish jurisdiction under the CPA or the...

Court Disposition

The application for review is granted; the compliance notice issued by the National Consumer Commission is cancelled.

Orders

  • The compliance notice issued by the National Consumer Commission is hereby cancelled.
  • No order is made as to costs.