Competition Commission v Allen Meshco (Proprietary) Limited and Others (09/CR/Jan07) [2008] ZACT 59; [2008] 2 CPLR 330 (CT) (23 July 2008)

Competition Commission v Allen Meshco (Proprietary) Limited and Others (09/CR/Jan07) [2008] ZACT 59; [2008] 2 CPLR 330 (CT) (23 July 2008)

The Tribunal found that the Commission and the complainants had reached consensus on all necessary extensions to the referral period, both orally and in writing, as permitted by section 50(4) of the Competition Act. The evidence of Mr Barnes, who represented the complainants, was accepted as credible and consistent with the documentary record. The Tribunal held that the respondents failed to provide sufficient grounds to challenge the validity of the extensions or to justify further discovery. The absence of some records did not undermine the existence of a continuous chain of consents. The Tribunal dismissed the points in limine, finding that the complaint had not lapsed and that the...

Citation
[2008] ZACT 59
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; Respondent: Allen Meshco (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Wireforce Steelbar (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Hendok (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Independent Galvanising (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Associated Wire Industries (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2008
Case Number
09/CR/Jan07
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Points in Limine Before Main Hearing
Outcome
The respondents' points in limine are dismissed. The complaint remains valid and will proceed to a hearing on the merits.
Judges
N Manoim, Y Carrim, L Reyburn
Legal Topics
Referral Period Extension, Points in Limine, Section 50 Competition Act, Documentary Evidence, Oral Consent
Competition Law Civil Procedure Referral Period Extension Points in Limine Section 50 Competition Act Documentary Evidence Oral Consent

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Allen Meshco (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Wireforce Steelbar (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Hendok (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Independent Galvanising (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Associated Wire Industries (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Points in Limine Before Main Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Commission properly obtained valid extensions to the one-year referral period under section 50 of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' points in limine justify dismissal of the complaint due to alleged irregularities in the extension process.
  3. 3 Whether oral and written consents to extensions were sufficient and properly documented.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Commission and the complainants had reached consensus on all necessary extensions to the referral period, both orally and in writing, as permitted by section 50(4) of the Competition Act. The evidence of Mr Barnes, who represented the complainants, was accepted as credible and consistent with the documentary record. The Tribunal held that the respondents failed to provide sufficient grounds to challenge the validity of the extensions or to justify further discovery. The absence of some records did not undermine the existence of a continuous chain of consents. The Tribunal dismissed the points in limine, finding that the complaint had not lapsed and that the...

Court Disposition

The respondents' points in limine are dismissed. The complaint remains valid and will proceed to a hearing on the merits.

Orders

  • The respondents' points in limine are dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs regarding the points in limine.