Competition Commission and SAFCOL and Others [2002] ZACT 75; [2002] ZACT 42 (26 June 2002)

Competition Commission and SAFCOL and Others [2002] ZACT 75; [2002] ZACT 42 (26 June 2002)

The Tribunal held that it is not competent to grant a consent order in its current form where the relief sought entails the voiding of contractual clauses without the consent or hearing of all contracting parties. The Tribunal found that York and Rance have a clear legal interest in the outcome and are entitled to be heard before their contractual rights are affected. The consent order procedure is not intended to be a contested proceeding, and the Act does not contemplate such a process. Granting the order without hearing all affected parties would violate principles of natural justice and fairness and could lead to abuse, especially where a party may have a commercial incentive to...

Citation
[2002] ZACT 75
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; Respondent: South African Forestry Company Limited; Respondent: York Timbers Limited; Respondent: CJ Rance (Pty) Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2002
Case Number
100/CR/Dec00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Consent Order Under Section 49 D of the Competition Act
Outcome
Application for consent order dismissed.
Judges
N.M Manoim, P Maponya, D.H. Lewis
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Vertical Restrictive Practices, Natural Justice, Contractual Nullification
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Consent Order Vertical Restrictive Practices Natural Justice Contractual Nullification

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

South African Forestry Company Limited

Respondent

York Timbers Limited

Respondent

CJ Rance (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Consent Order Under Section 49 D of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal can grant a consent order that voids contractual clauses without the consent or hearing of all contracting parties.
  2. 2 Whether York and Rance, as parties to the contracts, are entitled to be heard before their contractual rights are affected.
  3. 3 Whether consent order proceedings can become contested proceedings under the Competition Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that it is not competent to grant a consent order in its current form where the relief sought entails the voiding of contractual clauses without the consent or hearing of all contracting parties. The Tribunal found that York and Rance have a clear legal interest in the outcome and are entitled to be heard before their contractual rights are affected. The consent order procedure is not intended to be a contested proceeding, and the Act does not contemplate such a process. Granting the order without hearing all affected parties would violate principles of natural justice and fairness and could lead to abuse, especially where a party may have a commercial incentive to...

Court Disposition

Application for consent order dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for a consent order is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.