Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Competition Commission v Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta (019471) [2014] ZACT 81 (15 October 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that Bicicletta admitted to participating in conduct that contravened section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act by engaging in price fixing and cartel activities with other cycling retailers and wholesalers. The settlement agreement, which included admissions, undertakings for future compliance, cooperation with the Commission, and the implementation of compliance training, was deemed appropriate and in line with the objectives of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the settlement agreement as an order, thereby concluding all proceedings between the Commission and Bicicletta relating to the alleged contravention.

Court disposition

Settlement agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; proceedings between the Commission and Bicicletta concluded.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement between the Competition Commission and Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta is confirmed as an order of the Tribunal.
  • Bicicletta must cooperate with the Commission in the prosecution of other respondents.
  • Bicicletta must refrain from engaging in cartel conduct and price fixing.
  • Bicicletta must implement and annually update competition law compliance training for its employees, management, directors, and agents.
  • Bicicletta must display a compliance notice at its premises for six months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

02

Material facts

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Settlement Confirmation / Order Confirming Settlement Agreement

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Competition Commission argued that Bicicletta, together with other cycling retailers and wholesalers, participated in meetings where they agreed to fix prices and trading conditions for bicycles and cycling accessories. The Commission relied on evidence including meeting minutes and industry communications, asserting that such conduct constituted a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act. The Commission sought confirmation of the settlement agreement, which included admissions by Bicicletta and undertakings for future compliance.
Respondent
Bicicletta admitted to the conduct amounting to a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act. The respondent agreed to cooperate fully with the Commission in prosecuting other implicated parties, to refrain from future cartel conduct, and to implement competition law compliance training for its employees, management, directors, and agents. Bicicletta also undertook to display a compliance notice at its premises 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 or concerted practices between competitors to directly or indirectly fix prices or other trading conditions.

  2. 02

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    The Tribunal may confirm a settlement agreement as an order in terms of section 49D read with section 58(1)(b) and 59(1)(a) of the Competition Act.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that Bicicletta admitted to participating in conduct that contravened section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act by engaging in price fixing and cartel activities with other cycling retailers and wholesalers. The settlement agreement, which included admissions, undertakings for future compliance, cooperation with the Commission, and the implementation of compliance training, was deemed appropriate and in line with the objectives of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the settlement agreement as an order, thereby concluding all proceedings between the Commission and Bicicletta relating to the alleged contravention.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ongoing compliance training and corporate governance to prevent future contraventions of competition law.
  • Displaying a compliance notice at the respondent's premises serves to inform the public and reinforce the commitment to lawful conduct under the Competition Act.

Court disposition

Settlement agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; proceedings between the Commission and Bicicletta concluded.

  • The settlement agreement between the Competition Commission and Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta is confirmed as an order of the Tribunal.
  • Bicicletta must cooperate with the Commission in the prosecution of other respondents.
  • Bicicletta must refrain from engaging in cartel conduct and price fixing.
  • Bicicletta must implement and annually update competition law compliance training for its employees, management, directors, and agents.
  • Bicicletta must display a compliance notice at its premises 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

[2014] ZACT 81

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Case No: 019471

In the matter between:

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

and

Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta....................................................................Respondent

Panel: Y Carrim (Presiding Member)

A Roskam (Tribunal Member)

A Ndoni (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 15 October 2014

Decided on : 15 October 2014

Order

The Tribunal hereby confirms the order as agreed to and proposed by the Competition Commission and Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta, annexed hereto marked “A”.

15 October 2014

Date

Presiding Member

Ms Y Carrim

Concurring: Mr A Roskam and Ms A Ndoni

THE

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF

SOUTH AFRICA

HELD

IN PRETORIA

CT CASE NO. 73/CR/JUL12

CC CASE NO. 2011JUL0155

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

TRIDIRECT SA (PTY) LTD t/a BICSCLETTA....................................................................Respondent

In re:

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

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

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION AMD TR5DIRECT SA (PTY) LTD t/a BICICLETTA (“BIGICLETTA”) IN REGARD TO ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 4(1)(b)(i) OF THE COMPETITION ACT 89 OF 1998, AS AMENDED.

The Commission and Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta 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 beiow.

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 “Bicicletta” means a company duly registered in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa (Registration Number 2003/019769/07) with its registered address at 4 Pieter Road, Highveld Technopark, Centurion, Gauteng.

1.3 “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;

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

1.5 “Complaint” means the complaint initiated by the Commissioner of the Competition Commission in terms of section 49B of the Act under case number: 2011 Jul0155;

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

1.7 “Parties" means the Commission and Bicicletta;

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

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

1.9. “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/JULT2 respectively, namely: Fritz Pienaar Cycles (Pty) Ltd (“FPC”), Meiody Street 18 (Pty) Ltd (“Meiody”), 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) Lid (“Albatros”), Omnico (Pty) Ltd (“Omnico”), Cytek Cycle Distributors CC (“Cytek”), Cooiheat Cycle Agencies (Pty) Ltd (“Cooltiéat”), Maillot Jaune Trading (Pty) Ltd. (“Maillot Jaune”), Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd (“Bicicletta”), Le Peioton (Pty) Ltd (“Le Peloton”), DBS Distributing CC trading as Thule Car Rack Systems (“Thule”), Pedaling Dynamics CC trading as Dunkeld Cycles (“Dunkeid”), Summit Cycles CC (“Summit”), Dynamic Choices Two CC trading as Bester Cycles ("Bester”), Johnson Cycle Works CC (“Johnson”), and New Just Fun.

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 Meiody) 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 Bicicletta 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 Bicicietta .admits that its conduct amounts to contravention of section 4(1 )(b)(i) of the Act.

4.2. Future Conduct

4.2.1 Bicicletta agrees to fuiiy 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, Bicicletta specifically agrees to:

4.2.1.1 Testify before the Tribunal to such conduct and events forming the factual basis of the Commission’s referral affidavit and this Settlement Agreement as are within Bicicietta’s knowledge; and

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

4.2.3 Bicicletta 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, pcicletta 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 ail proceedings between the Commission and Bicicietta 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 on this the day of 2014

For Bicicletta

[title]

Dated and signed at PRETORIA on this the 7th day of August 2014

Competition Commissioner

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.

“[Name of a firm] 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. ”

For: the Commission

For: Tridirect SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Bicicletta

Represented by

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.