DW Intergrators CC and SAS Institute (Pty) Ltd (14/IR/Nov99) [2000] ZACT 16 (1 May 2000)

DW Intergrators CC and SAS Institute (Pty) Ltd (14/IR/Nov99) [2000] ZACT 16 (1 May 2000)

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that SAS Institute is dominant in the relevant market for information delivery software, either globally or locally. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove dominance or market power, and the concept of 'relational dominance' was not adequately substantiated. Without proof of dominance, there is no basis to examine the alleged restrictive practice or abuse of dominance. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that the purposes of the Competition Act would be frustrated in the absence of interim relief. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements for interim relief under Section 59 were not met...

Citation
[2000] ZACT 16
Parties
Applicant: DW Integrators CC; Respondent: SAS Institute (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 May 2000
Case Number
14/IR/NOV99
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Decision on Application for Interim Relief Under Section 59 of the Competition Act
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed.
Judges
D.H. Lewis, M.G. Holden, U. Bhoola
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Essential Facility, Interim Relief, Market Definition, Exclusionary Conduct
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Intellectual Property Abuse of Dominance Essential Facility Interim Relief Market Definition Exclusionary Conduct

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DW Integrators CC

Applicant

SAS Institute (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Decision on Application for Interim Relief Under Section 59 of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's refusal to grant a software licence to the applicant constitutes an abuse of dominance under Section 8 of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's software constitutes an essential facility under Section 8(b) of the Competition Act.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for interim relief under Section 59 of the Competition Act are satisfied, including the existence of a restrictive practice, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that SAS Institute is dominant in the relevant market for information delivery software, either globally or locally. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove dominance or market power, and the concept of 'relational dominance' was not adequately substantiated. Without proof of dominance, there is no basis to examine the alleged restrictive practice or abuse of dominance. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that the purposes of the Competition Act would be frustrated in the absence of interim relief. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements for interim relief under Section 59 were not met...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's request for interim relief is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the application on the scale as between party and party, including the costs of one counsel and one attorney.