Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Competition Commission v Albatross Fishing & Cycling (Sole Proprietorship) (CR049Jul12/SA209Feb15 (020800)) [2015] ZACT 41; [2015] 1 CPLR 152 (CT) (29 April 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that Albatros Fishing & Cycling admitted to participating in conduct that contravened section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act by engaging in price-fixing and related cartel activities with other cycling retailers and wholesalers. The consent agreement, which included undertakings by Albatros to cooperate with the Commission, refrain from future cartel conduct, and implement compliance training, was deemed appropriate and in line with the objectives of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement as an order, thereby concluding all proceedings between the Commission and Albatros relating to the alleged contraventions.

Court disposition

Consent agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; proceedings between the Commission and Albatros concluded.

Orders

  • The consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Albatros Fishing & Cycling is confirmed as an order of the Tribunal.
  • Albatros Fishing & Cycling must cooperate with the Commission in future investigations and prosecutions related to the complaint.
  • Albatros Fishing & Cycling must refrain from engaging in cartel conduct and implement annual competition law compliance training for its employees, management, directors, and agents.
  • Albatros Fishing & Cycling must display a public notice regarding the settlement and compliance for six months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

02

Material facts

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Albatros Fishing & Cycling (Sole Proprietorship)

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Settlement Application / Consent Agreement Confirmation Before Tribunal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Competition Commission argued that Albatros, together with other cycling retailers and wholesalers, participated in meetings where they agreed to fix prices and trading conditions for bicycles and accessories. The Commission presented evidence of minutes from a September 2008 meeting, which discussed increasing mark-ups, eliminating discounting, and coordinating recommended retail prices. The Commission asserted that this conduct constituted a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act and sought confirmation of the consent agreement, which included admissions and undertakings by Albatros to desist from such conduct and to cooperate with future investigations.
Respondent
Albatros Fishing & Cycling admitted to the contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act. It agreed to cooperate fully with the Commission in prosecuting other respondents, to refrain from future cartel conduct, and to implement competition law compliance training for its employees, management, directors, and agents. Albatros also undertook to display a public notice regarding the settlement and compliance for six months and to update training materials annually.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act prohibits agreements between competitors to directly or indirectly fix prices or other trading conditions.

  2. 02

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    Consent agreements may be confirmed as orders of the Tribunal under section 49D, read with sections 58(1)(b) and 59(1)(a) of the Act.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that Albatros Fishing & Cycling admitted to participating in conduct that contravened section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act by engaging in price-fixing and related cartel activities with other cycling retailers and wholesalers. The consent agreement, which included undertakings by Albatros to cooperate with the Commission, refrain from future cartel conduct, and implement compliance training, was deemed appropriate and in line with the objectives of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement as an order, thereby concluding all proceedings between the Commission and Albatros relating to the alleged contraventions.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal emphasised the importance of ongoing compliance training to prevent future contraventions of competition law.
  • Displaying a public notice regarding the settlement serves to inform the public and promote transparency in enforcement actions.

Court disposition

Consent agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; proceedings between the Commission and Albatros concluded.

  • The consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Albatros Fishing & Cycling is confirmed as an order of the Tribunal.
  • Albatros Fishing & Cycling must cooperate with the Commission in future investigations and prosecutions related to the complaint.
  • Albatros Fishing & Cycling must refrain from engaging in cartel conduct and implement annual competition law compliance training for its employees, management, directors, and agents.
  • Albatros Fishing & Cycling must display a public notice regarding the settlement and compliance for six months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

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

[2015] ZACT 41

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Case No: CR049Jul12/SA209Feb15 (020800)

In the matter between:

The Competition Commission...........................................................................................................Applicant

and

Albatros Fishing & Cycling (Sole Proprietorship).........................................................................Respondent

previously named “Winners Cycles (Pty) Ltd”

Panel: A Roskam (Presiding Member)

I Valodia (Tribunal Member)

A Ndoni (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 29 April 2015

Decided on: 29 April 2015

Order

The Tribunal hereby confirms the consent agreement as agreed to and proposed by the Competition Commission and Albatros Fishing and Cycling Fishing (Sole Proprietorship) previously named “Winners Cycles (Pty) Ltd”, annexed hereto marked “A”.

29 April 2015

Date

Presiding Member

Mr A Roskam

Concurring: Prof. I Valodia and Ms A Ndoni

IN THE

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD IN PRETORIA

CT CASE NO. 73/CR/JUL12 CC

CASE NO. 2011JUL0155

THE COMPETITION COMMISSION...........................................................................................Applicant

ALBATROS FISHING & CYCLING (Sole Proprietorship)

Previously named “WINNERS CYCLES (PTY) LTD”..............................................................Respondent

In re:

COMPETITION COMMISSION.....................................................................................................Applicant

FRITZ PIENAAR CYCLES (PTY) LTD AND 19 OTHERS...................................................Respondents

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION AND ALBATROS FISHING & CYCLING (“ALBATROS”) IN REGARD TO

ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 4(1)(b)(i) OF THE COMPETITION ACT 89 OF 1998, AS AMENDED.

The Commission and Albatros hereby agree that application be made to the Tribunal for the confirmation of this Settlement Agreement as an order of the Tribunal in terms of section 49D as read with section 58 (1)(b) and 59(1 )(a) of the Act on the terms set out below.

1. DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Settlement Agreement the following definitions shall apply:

1.1 “Act” means the Competition Act, 1998 (Act No. 89 of 1998), as amended;

1.2 “Commission” means the Competition Commission of South Africa, a statutory body established in terms of section 19 of the Act, with its principal

place of business at Building C, Mulayo Building, the DTI Campus, 77 Meintjies Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria, South Africa;

1.3 “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of the Competition Commission appointed in terms of section 22 of the Act;

1.4 “Complaint” means the complaint initiated by the Commissioner of the Competition Commission in terms of section 49B of the Act under case number:

2011Jul0155;

1.5 “Albatros” means a company duly incorporated with limited liability in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa, with its main place of business at Shop 3, Windsor House, Margate, KwaZulu-Natal.

1.6 “Parties” means the Commission and Aibatros;

1.7 “Respondents’’ means all the firms that are cited as the respondents in the Commission’s complaint referral filed under Competition Tribunal Case number: 73/CR/JUL12 respectively, namely: Fritz Pienaar Cycles (Pty) Ltd (“FPC”), Melody Street 18 (Pty) Ltd (“Melody

Street"), Moneymine 88 CC trading as Hotspot Cycles (“Hotspot”), Pedal-On-Marketing CC trading as Maverick Cycles (“Maverick”), Salojee’s Cycles CC (“Salojee’s”), West Rand Cycles CC (“West Rand Cycles”), Bowman Cycles (Pty) Ltd (“Bowman”), Albatros Fishing & Cycling, previously named Winners Cycles (Pty) Ltd (“Albatros”), Omnico (Pty) Ltd (“Omnico”), Cytek Cycle Distributors CC (“Cytek”), Coolheat Cycle Agencies (Pty) Ltd (“Coolheat”), Maillot Jaune Trading (Pty) Ltd (“Maillot Jaune”), Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd (“Bicicietta”), Le Peloton (Pty) Ltd (“Le Peloton”), DBS Distributing CC trading as Thule Car Rack Systems (“Thule”), Pedaling Dynamics CC trading as Dunkeld Cycles (“Dunkeld”), Summit Cycles (“Summit”), Dynamic Choices Two CC trading as Bester Cycles (“Bester”), Johnson Cycle Works CC (“Johnson”), and New Just Fun;

1.8 “Settlement Agreement” means this settlement agreement duly signed and concluded between the Commission and Albatros; and

1.9 “Tribunal” means the Competition Tribunal of South Africa, a statutory body established in terms of section 26 of the Act, with its principal

place of business at Building C, Mulayo Building, the DTI Campus, 77 Meintjies Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria, South Africa.

2. THE COMMISSION’S INVESTIGATIONS AND FINDINGS

2.1 In September 2008, the Commission received information from anonymous source regarding the meetings which allegedly took place in Cape Town and Gauteng between various cycling retailers and wholesalers. The Commission was also provided with minutes of one such meeting. These minutes were also posted on the Hub Website, a web based forum for cycling enthusiasts in the cycling industry. The minutes provided to the Commission were of a meeting which occurred on 10 September 2008 (“the September 2008 meeting”) in Midrand.

2.2 As reflected in this minutes, the following key issues were discussed:

2.2.1 Increasing gross margins by increasing mark-ups for cycling accessories from 50% to 75%, and for bicycles from 35% to 50%;

2.2.2 A proposed time for the price increase (as from the 1st October 2008);

2.2.3 Getting rid of discounting and of shops undercutting each other;

2.2.4 Getting wholesalers to provide higher recommended retail prices (“RRPs”) to the retailers and advertise these prices to the public.

2.3 Based on this information, the Commission initiated a complaint in terms of section 49B of the Act, on 5 March 2009 against FPC and Cycle Lab (now Melody) under CC Case Number: 2009Mar4326. The representatives of these firms were identified as having been the instigators behind the September 2008 meeting. Both the firms against whom the complaint was first initiated are cycling retailers.

2.4 The Commission later obtained further information implicating other firms and the Commissioner amended the first initiation to include other respodents on 12 May 2009.

2.5 Following an investigation, the Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 25 June 2010 against 28 respondents who were both cycling retailers and wholesalers, including all of the respondents identified in the amended initiation. On 12 November 2010, the Commission filed amended notice of motion and supplementary referral affidavit.

2.6 Pursuant thereto, the Commission withdrew the first referral on 10 June 2011 against all respondents named in the first referral.

2.7 On 18 July 2011, the Commissioner then initiated a fresh complaint under CC Case Number: 2011Jul0155, into the allegations concerning primarily the September 2008 meeting and received additional information from certain respondents pursuant to the investigation of this complaint.

3. THE COMMISSION’S REFERRAL

3.1 Following its investigation, the Commission concluded that the conduct by Aibatros together with other respondents constituted a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Act, in that they agreed, alternatively engaged in a concerted practice to directly or indirectly fix prices or other trading conditions. This includes both the retailers and wholesalers present at the September 2008 meeting since they are in the same line of business in respect of the sale of bicycles and cycling accessories and equipment, at the wholesale and retail levels respectively.

3.2 In light of its findings, the Commission decided to refer the complaint on 5 July 2012 to the Tribunal for determination.

4. AGREEMENTS

4.1 Admissions

4.1.1 Albatros admits that its conduct amounts to a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Act.

4.2 Future Conduct

4.2.1 Albatros agrees to fully co-operate with the Commission in relation to the prosecution of any other respondents who are the subject of its investigations and referral to the Tribunal. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Albatros specifically agrees to:

4.2.1.1 Testify before the Tribunal regarding the conduct and events forming the factual basis of the Commission's referral affidavit and which are covered by this Settlement Agreementand

4.2.1.2 To the extent that it is in existence, provide evidence, written or otherwise, which is in its possession or under its control,

concerning the alleged contraventions set out in the Commission’s referral affidavit;

4.2.1.3 Desist from engaging in the conduct complained of.

4.2.2 Albatros agrees that it will in future refrain from participating in meeting(s) aimed at engaging in a cartel conduct which may lead to a possible contravention of section 4(1 )(b) of the Act.

4.2.3 Albatros agrees that its employees, management, directors and agents will attend a competition law compliance training programme incorporating corporate governance to be provided by the Commission and designed to ensure that its employees, management, directors and agents do not engage in future contraventions of the Competition Act.

4.2.5 Furthermore, Albatros will update and repeat such training materials annually to ensure on an ongoing basis that its employees, management, directors and agents do not engage in any future contraventions of the Competition Act.

This agreement, upon confirmation as an order by the Tribunal, is entered into in full and final settlement and concludes all proceedings

between the Commission and Albatros relating to any alleged contravention by the respondents of the Act that is the subject of

the Commission’s investigation (CC Case no. 2011JUL0155).

Dated and signed at Margate on this the 14th day of December 2014

For Albatros

John Cremore

Owner

Dated and signed at Pretoria on this the 19th day of February 2015

For Commission

ANNEXURE“A”

The parties agree that a notice on the terms set out hereunder will be displayed in a prominent place in their premises for a period of 6 months from the date of the Competition Tribunal’s order.

“Albatross Fishing & Cycling has settled a complaint referral with the Commission and has undertaken to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Competition Act 89 of 1998.

For further information feel free to contact the Commission on telephone number: 012 394 3200 or E-mail:CCSA@compcom.co.za.”

Dated and signed on this the 14 day of December 2014

For: Commission

Competition Commissioner

For: Albatros

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.

Competition Act 89 of 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.