Distell Limited v Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA-NV and Another (LM211Jan16/OTH172Sep18) [2020] ZACT 7 (17 February 2020)
The Tribunal found that 'ambient space' in clause 7.2 of the merger conditions refers only to storage and display space for products, not to advertising or branding space. Therefore, AB InBev's exclusive branding agreements with outlets did not breach the conditions. Regarding exclusive pouring rights at stadia, the Tribunal held that stadia are included in the definition of 'outlet' for the purposes of the conditions, contrary to the Commission's interpretation. However, the Tribunal could not grant a declaratory order on whether AB InBev's agreements at stadia breached the conditions, as it lacked sufficient evidence on whether these agreements constituted sponsored events exempted by...
- Citation
- [2020] ZACT 7
- Parties
- Applicant: Distell Limited; Respondent: Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV; Respondent: Competition Commission of South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 17 February 2020
- Case Number
- LM211Jan16/OTH172Sep18
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Order and Reasons Following Hearing
- Outcome
- Application for a declarator that AB InBev breached merger conditions dismissed; Commission's decision not to invoke Rule 39 proceedings reviewed and set aside; Commission ordered to investigate exclusive pouring rights agreements at stadia within 120 days.
- Judges
- Yasmin Carrim, Thando Vilakazi, Imraan Valodia
- Legal Topics
- Merger Conditions, Exclusive Pouring Rights, Definition of Outlet, Review of Administrative Decision, Rule 39 Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Distell Limited
Applicant
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV
Respondent
Competition Commission of South Africa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Order and Reasons Following Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether AB InBev's exclusive branding agreements with outlets breached merger conditions, specifically clause 7.2.
- 2 Whether AB InBev's exclusive pouring rights agreements at stadia breached merger conditions, specifically clause 7.2.
- 3 Whether the Competition Commission's decision not to invoke Rule 39 proceedings was rational and should be reviewed and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that 'ambient space' in clause 7.2 of the merger conditions refers only to storage and display space for products, not to advertising or branding space. Therefore, AB InBev's exclusive branding agreements with outlets did not breach the conditions. Regarding exclusive pouring rights at stadia, the Tribunal held that stadia are included in the definition of 'outlet' for the purposes of the conditions, contrary to the Commission's interpretation. However, the Tribunal could not grant a declaratory order on whether AB InBev's agreements at stadia breached the conditions, as it lacked sufficient evidence on whether these agreements constituted sponsored events exempted by...
Court Disposition
Application for a declarator that AB InBev breached merger conditions dismissed; Commission's decision not to invoke Rule 39 proceedings reviewed and set aside; Commission ordered to investigate exclusive pouring rights agreements at stadia within 120 days.
Orders
- The application for a declarator that AB InBev breached the conditions imposed on the merger under case number LM211Jan16 is dismissed.
- The Commission's decision not to invoke proceedings established in Rule 39 of its rules based upon the complaint of Distell regarding exclusive pouring rights at stadia is reviewed and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment