Competition Commission v Media 24 (pty) Ltd (92/CR/Oct11) [2013] ZACT 19; [2013] 1 CPLR 291 (CT) (28 March 2013)

Competition Commission v Media 24 (pty) Ltd (92/CR/Oct11) [2013] ZACT 19; [2013] 1 CPLR 291 (CT) (28 March 2013)

The Tribunal found that the Commission's supplementary affidavit, as pleaded, may establish a cause of action under section 8(c) of the Competition Act. The Commission alleges an exclusionary strategy involving both Forum and Vista, with Forum's below-cost pricing supported by Vista's targeted discounts. The Tribunal held that lawful actions by a dominant firm, when combined as part of a broader exclusionary strategy, may be actionable under section 8(c). The objection that the supplementary affidavit discloses no cause of action was dismissed. However, the Tribunal upheld Media24's objection that the allegations regarding Vista were vague and embarrassing, ordering the Commission to...

Citation
[2013] ZACT 19
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; Respondent: Media24 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Case Number
92/CR/Oct11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Amend Complaint Referral; Exceptions Raised by Respondent
Outcome
Objection that the supplementary affidavit fails to disclose a cause of action is dismissed; objection of vague and embarrassing is partly upheld regarding Vista; objection of contradiction between section 8(c) and section 8(d)(iv) complaints is dismissed.
Judges
Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels
Legal Topics
Predatory Pricing, Dominance Abuse, Section 8c, Section 8d Iv, Exclusionary Conduct, Pleading Amendment
Competition Law Predatory Pricing Dominance Abuse Section 8c Section 8d Iv Exclusionary Conduct Pleading Amendment

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Media24 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Amend Complaint Referral; Exceptions Raised by Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission's supplementary affidavit discloses a cause of action under section 8(c) and/or section 8(d)(iv) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the supplementary affidavit is vague and embarrassing regarding allegations against Vista.
  3. 3 Whether the Commission's complaints under section 8(c) and section 8(d)(iv) are contradictory.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Commission's supplementary affidavit, as pleaded, may establish a cause of action under section 8(c) of the Competition Act. The Commission alleges an exclusionary strategy involving both Forum and Vista, with Forum's below-cost pricing supported by Vista's targeted discounts. The Tribunal held that lawful actions by a dominant firm, when combined as part of a broader exclusionary strategy, may be actionable under section 8(c). The objection that the supplementary affidavit discloses no cause of action was dismissed. However, the Tribunal upheld Media24's objection that the allegations regarding Vista were vague and embarrassing, ordering the Commission to...

Court Disposition

Objection that the supplementary affidavit fails to disclose a cause of action is dismissed; objection of vague and embarrassing is partly upheld regarding Vista; objection of contradiction between section 8(c) and section 8(d)(iv) complaints is dismissed.

Orders

  • The Commission is granted leave to file its supplementary founding affidavit dated 26 February 2013 in support of its complaint referral.
  • The Commission must, within 20 business days, supply further particulars regarding the allegations against Vista as specified in the order.