Directory Solutions CC v Trudon (Pty) Ltd and Another (77/IR/Nov09) [2010] ZACT 27; [2010] 1 CPLR 96 (CT) (8 April 2010)

Directory Solutions CC v Trudon (Pty) Ltd and Another (77/IR/Nov09) [2010] ZACT 27; [2010] 1 CPLR 96 (CT) (8 April 2010)

The Tribunal found that Trudon's requirement for upfront payment from customers using Directory Solutions for enhanced directory entries is exclusionary and discriminatory, as other agents and direct customers are not subject to the same requirement. The Tribunal determined that Directory Solutions is a competitor of Trudon in the upstream market for the solicitation and collection of entries for official telephone directories, and that Trudon holds a monopoly in the publication of these directories. The evidence showed that the policy would cause serious harm to Directory Solutions, including loss of revenue and reputational damage, and would adversely affect a large number of businesses...

Citation
[2010] ZACT 27
Parties
Applicant: Directory Solutions CC; Respondent: Trudon (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Telkom SA Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2010
Case Number
77/IR/Nov09
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Decision on Interim Relief Under Section 49 C of the Competition Act
Outcome
Interim relief granted in favour of Directory Solutions CC against Trudon (Pty) Ltd and Telkom SA Ltd.
Judges
Yasmin Carrim, Lawrence Reyburn, Andreas Wessels
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Exclusionary Conduct, Interim Relief, Essential Facilities, Balance of Convenience
Competition Law Abuse of Dominance Exclusionary Conduct Interim Relief Essential Facilities Balance of Convenience

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Directory Solutions CC

Applicant

Trudon (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Telkom SA Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Decision on Interim Relief Under Section 49 C of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Trudon's requirement of upfront payment for directory entries submitted via Directory Solutions constitutes an abuse of dominance under Section 8 of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether Directory Solutions and Trudon are competitors in a relevant market for the solicitation and collection of entries for official telephone directories.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for interim relief under Section 49C of the Competition Act are satisfied, including evidence of a prohibited practice, risk of serious or irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Trudon's requirement for upfront payment from customers using Directory Solutions for enhanced directory entries is exclusionary and discriminatory, as other agents and direct customers are not subject to the same requirement. The Tribunal determined that Directory Solutions is a competitor of Trudon in the upstream market for the solicitation and collection of entries for official telephone directories, and that Trudon holds a monopoly in the publication of these directories. The evidence showed that the policy would cause serious harm to Directory Solutions, including loss of revenue and reputational damage, and would adversely affect a large number of businesses...

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted in favour of Directory Solutions CC against Trudon (Pty) Ltd and Telkom SA Ltd.

Orders

  • Trudon and Telkom are ordered jointly and severally to accept all subscriber entries provided by Directory Solutions for the next Telkom telephone directories to be published for the regions of South Cape and Karoo, Boland and West Coast, Johannesburg, and the East Rand, without requiring upfront payment of Trudon's...
  • This order remains in force until six months after the date of this order, or until complaint proceedings corresponding to the complaint lodged by Directory Solutions with the Competition Commission are concluded, whichever is earlier.