Investec Property Fund Ltd v Bethlehem Property Development (Pty) Ltd (018978) [2014] ZACT 48 (13 August 2014)

Investec Property Fund Ltd v Bethlehem Property Development (Pty) Ltd (018978) [2014] ZACT 48 (13 August 2014)

The Tribunal found that the acquisition would not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant market. The properties owned by the merging parties are geographically distant and do not compete directly. Other regional shopping centres closer to Dihlabeng Mall, owned by competitors, impose greater competitive constraints. There are no exclusivity clauses in the lease agreements, no employment concerns, and no significant barriers to entry. No public interest issues arise from the transaction. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Citation
[2014] ZACT 48
Parties
Applicant: Investec Property Fund Ltd; Respondent: Bethlehem Property Development (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2014
Case Number
018978
Procedural Posture
Merger Approval / Final Determination
Outcome
Merger approved unconditionally.
Judges
N Manoim, T Madima, A Roskam
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Market Definition, Public Interest, Barriers to Entry
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Merger Control Market Definition Public Interest Barriers to Entry

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investec Property Fund Ltd

Applicant

Bethlehem Property Development (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merger Approval / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed acquisition of Bethlehem Property Development (Pty) Ltd by Investec Property Fund Ltd is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market.
  2. 2 Whether any public interest concerns arise from the proposed transaction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the acquisition would not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant market. The properties owned by the merging parties are geographically distant and do not compete directly. Other regional shopping centres closer to Dihlabeng Mall, owned by competitors, impose greater competitive constraints. There are no exclusivity clauses in the lease agreements, no employment concerns, and no significant barriers to entry. No public interest issues arise from the transaction. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Court Disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed transaction is approved without conditions.