Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Competition Commission and Another v SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd (CR280Feb18/SUB026Jun23) [2023] ZACT 37 (5 July 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the documents sought under items 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not exist, and requiring their production would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate. Items 5.1 and 5.2 have already been provided, and item 5.4 will be confirmed as non-existent by affidavit. Regarding item 5.3, the Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the relevant allegation in the witness statement renders the requested documents irrelevant, and in any event, the data is available from third parties. The Tribunal declined to enforce compliance with paragraph 5.3 of the summons. The order does not limit SA Airlink's right to cross-examine Mr van der Molen, nor the Commission's right to object during cross-examination. No order as to costs was made.

Court disposition

Application to set aside the summons is granted in respect of the disputed items; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • SA Airlink no longer persists with items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, and 5.2 of the Schedule.
  • Mr van der Molen shall, by no later than 7 July 2023, furnish an affidavit confirming that documents under item 5.4 do not exist.
  • An amended witness statement shall be delivered by no later than 7 July 2023.
  • The Tribunal declines to enforce compliance with paragraph 5.3 of the summons.
  • SA Airlink retains the right to cross-examine Mr van der Molen; the Commission may object to questions during cross-examination.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Miles van der Molen

Applicant

SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Stay Application / Order on Application to Set Aside Summons

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Commission argued that certain documents do not exist in the form sought, and compiling them from other sources would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate. It further stated that some allegations have been withdrawn, rendering the requested documents irrelevant. The Commission also maintained its right to object to questions during cross-examination.
Respondent
SA Airlink accepted that some documents do not exist and that some information has already been provided. It argued that it has been unfairly accused in the witness statement and sought documents to address this. SA Airlink also stated that certain data is available from third parties and reserved its right to cross-examine Mr van der Molen.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Tribunal Order

    A summons for document production should not be enforced where compliance would be unduly burdensome or disproportionate.

  2. 02

    Competition Tribunal Order

    Documents that do not exist or have been confirmed as unavailable by affidavit need not be produced.

  3. 03

    Competition Tribunal Order

    Withdrawal of allegations in witness statements renders related document requests irrelevant.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the documents sought under items 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not exist, and requiring their production would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate. Items 5.1 and 5.2 have already been provided, and item 5.4 will be confirmed as non-existent by affidavit. Regarding item 5.3, the Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the relevant allegation in the witness statement renders the requested documents irrelevant, and in any event, the data is available from third parties. The Tribunal declined to enforce compliance with paragraph 5.3 of the summons. The order does not limit SA Airlink's right to cross-examine Mr van der Molen, nor the Commission's right to object during cross-examination. No order as to costs was made.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal notes that its order does not affect the parties' rights regarding cross-examination and objections during the hearing.
  • The Tribunal records that there is no longer a dispute between the parties regarding certain documents.

Court disposition

Application to set aside the summons is granted in respect of the disputed items; no order as to costs.

  • SA Airlink no longer persists with items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, and 5.2 of the Schedule.
  • Mr van der Molen shall, by no later than 7 July 2023, furnish an affidavit confirming that documents under item 5.4 do not exist.
  • An amended witness statement shall be delivered by no later than 7 July 2023.
  • The Tribunal declines to enforce compliance with paragraph 5.3 of the summons.
  • SA Airlink retains the right to cross-examine Mr van der Molen; the Commission may object to questions during cross-examination.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

Competition Tribunal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Competition Tribunal

Order

[2023] ZACT 37

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No.:CR280Feb18/SUB026Jun23

In the matter between:

THE COMPETITION COMMISSION First

Applicant

MILES VAN DER MOLEN Second

Applicant

And

SA AIRLINK (PTY) LTD Respondent

Panel: T Ngcukaitobi (Presiding Member)

I Valodia (Tribunal Member)

AW Wessels (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 04 July 2023

Decided on: 05 July 2023

ORDER

AND BRIEF REASONS

In the application to set aside a Summons issued at the instance of SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd on 23 May 2023, for the production of documentation

by Mr Miles van der Molen, the Competition Tribunal makes the following Order and records the following Brief Reasons in relation

to the documentation sought and recorded in Schedule 1 ("the Schedule") of the Tribunal Summons:

1. The Tribunal records that SA Airlink no longer persists with the following items, listed in the Schedule:

1.1. Item 1: the Commission states that the documents do not exist in the form in which they are sought in the summons. While Mr van der Moten could potentially compile the information from other sources including third parties, it would be unduly burdensome to undertake the exercise, hence disproportionate to require the production of these items at this stage.

1.2. Items 2,3 and 4: Mr van der Molen's Confirmatory Affidavit to the Commission's Replying Affidavit confirms that these items do not exist. This allegation is accepted by SA Airlink.

1.3. Items 5.1 and 5.2: Mr van der Molen has provided the information sought.

1.4. Item 5.4: Mr van der Molen shall, by no later than 7 July 2023, furnish an affidavit confirming that these documents do not exist. There is no longer a dispute between the parties in regard to these documents.

2. Item 5.3: The submission of SA Airlink is that it has been unfairly accused by Mr van der Molen at paragraph 24 of his witness statement where the following appears "[we] recently launched CPT - KIM against SA Air/ink and the incumbent responded by decreasing pricing and increasing gauge of aircraft on the route." The Commission states that the above allegation has been withdrawn by Mr van der Molen. An amended witness statement shall be delivered by no later than 7 July 2023. The Tribunal's view is that in light of the withdrawal, the documents sought are not relevant. In any event, Counsel for SA Airlink stated that this data is available from third parties. The Tribunal accordingly declines to enforce compliance with paragraph 5.3 of the summons.

3. This order does not limit the rights of SA Airlink to cross-examine Mr van der Molen on any aspect of his original or amended witness statement. The Commission is entitled to object to any question raised in cross-examination. The Tribunal shall make the appropriate rulings during the course of the hearing.

4. There is no order as to costs.

Presiding Member

Adv. Tembeka Ngcukaitobl SC

Concurring: Prof. lmraan Valodia and Mr Andreas Wessels

Date: 05 July 2023

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.