Competition Commission v Louw N.O. and Others (017731) [2014] ZACT 86; [2014] 2 CPLR 387 (CT) (18 December 2014)

Competition Commission v Louw N.O. and Others (017731) [2014] ZACT 86; [2014] 2 CPLR 387 (CT) (18 December 2014)

The Tribunal found that Welkom Centre and Louw's Centre entered into and continued to adhere to an agreement to divide markets in the Free State and Northern Cape for the supply and distribution of locking products, including but not limited to Mul-T-Lock products. The respondents conceded the existence and ongoing nature of the agreement, and their attempts to justify or limit its scope were rejected. The Tribunal held that market allocation agreements are per se prohibited under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act, with no available justification or defence. The evidence, including correspondence and witness testimony, confirmed the ongoing nature of the agreement...

Citation
[2014] ZACT 86
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; Respondent: Sam Louw N.O.; Respondent: Anita Louw N.O.; Respondent: Welkom Key Centre CC
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Case Number
017731
Procedural Posture
Complaint Referral / Order After Hearing on Merits; Remedies to Be Determined at Further Pre Hearing
Outcome
Both Welkom Centre and Louw's Centre found to have contravened section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act by dividing markets; agreement found to be ongoing; cease and desist order issued; remedies to be determined at further pre-hearing.
Judges
Norman Manoim, Mondo Mazwai, Imraan Valodia
Legal Topics
Market Allocation, Horizontal Agreement, Per Se Offence, Administrative Penalty, Cease and Desist Order
Competition Law Market Allocation Horizontal Agreement Per Se Offence Administrative Penalty Cease and Desist Order

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Sam Louw N.O.

Respondent

Anita Louw N.O.

Respondent

Welkom Key Centre CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint Referral / Order After Hearing on Merits; Remedies to Be Determined at Further Pre Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Welkom Key Centre and Louw's Centre entered into an agreement to divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was ongoing after the commencement of the Competition Act.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement was confined to Mul-T-Lock products or extended to all locking products.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Welkom Centre and Louw's Centre entered into and continued to adhere to an agreement to divide markets in the Free State and Northern Cape for the supply and distribution of locking products, including but not limited to Mul-T-Lock products. The respondents conceded the existence and ongoing nature of the agreement, and their attempts to justify or limit its scope were rejected. The Tribunal held that market allocation agreements are per se prohibited under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act, with no available justification or defence. The evidence, including correspondence and witness testimony, confirmed the ongoing nature of the agreement...

Court Disposition

Both Welkom Centre and Louw's Centre found to have contravened section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act by dividing markets; agreement found to be ongoing; cease and desist order issued; remedies to be determined at further pre-hearing.

Orders

  • Louw's Centre is found to have contravened section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act by dividing the Free State and Northern Cape markets for locking products.
  • Welkom Centre is found to have contravened section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act by dividing the Free State and Northern Cape markets for locking products.