Brodsky Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd (38/LM/Jul10) [2010] ZACT 51 (4 August 2010)

Brodsky Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd (38/LM/Jul10) [2010] ZACT 51 (4 August 2010)

The Tribunal found that the overlaps in property ownership resulting from the merger were minor, with post-merger market shares remaining below thresholds that would raise competition concerns. Effective competition from other property owners would persist. The initial public interest concern regarding retrenchment of 20 employees was resolved when the acquiring firms undertook to employ all affected individuals. The merger was therefore unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and did not raise any public interest concerns.

Citation
[2010] ZACT 51
Parties
Applicant: Brodsky Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Capital Property Fund Ltd; Applicant: Resilient Properties (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Fortress Income 2 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2010
Case Number
38/LM/Jul10
Procedural Posture
Merger Notification / Tribunal Approval
Outcome
Merger unconditionally approved.
Judges
Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Market Share Analysis, Public Interest, Employment 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brodsky Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Capital Property Fund Ltd

Applicant

Resilient Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Fortress Income 2 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merger Notification / Tribunal Approval

  1. 1 Whether the proposed merger would substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant property markets.
  2. 2 Whether the merger raises any public interest concerns, particularly regarding employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the overlaps in property ownership resulting from the merger were minor, with post-merger market shares remaining below thresholds that would raise competition concerns. Effective competition from other property owners would persist. The initial public interest concern regarding retrenchment of 20 employees was resolved when the acquiring firms undertook to employ all affected individuals. The merger was therefore unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and did not raise any public interest concerns.

Court Disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The merger between the acquiring firms and Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.
  • The acquiring firms are to employ all 20 affected employees on new employment contracts.