Isizinda Aluminium (Pty) Ltd v Bayside Casthouse Operation of Billiton Aluminium SA (Pty) Ltd (LM179Jan15/020503) [2015] ZACT 54 (3 June 2015)

Isizinda Aluminium (Pty) Ltd v Bayside Casthouse Operation of Billiton Aluminium SA (Pty) Ltd (LM179Jan15/020503) [2015] ZACT 54 (3 June 2015)

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between IsiZinda Aluminium and the Bayside Casthouse would not result in any horizontal overlap, as IsiZinda was a newly formed entity with no operations and Bayside Casthouse supplied rolling slab exclusively to Hulamin. The vertical relationship between the parties did not give rise to foreclosure concerns, as Hulamin was already the sole customer and this would remain unchanged post-merger. Public interest concerns raised by RBIDZ, NUMSA, and the DTI were found not to be merger-specific and would not affect the current operation of the industry. The acquisition would ensure continued supply of rolling slab to Hulamin and save 78 jobs that...

Citation
[2015] ZACT 54
Parties
Applicant: Isizinda Aluminium (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Bayside Casthouse Operation of Billiton Aluminium SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2015
Case Number
LM179Jan15/020503
Procedural Posture
Merger Application / Approval and Reasons
Outcome
Merger approved unconditionally.
Judges
Medi Mokuena, Fiona Tregenna, Andiswa Ndoni
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Vertical Relationships, Public Interest, Employment Effects
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Merger Control Vertical Relationships Public Interest Employment Effects

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isizinda Aluminium (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Bayside Casthouse Operation of Billiton Aluminium SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merger Application / Approval and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed merger is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed merger raises any substantial public interest concerns, including employment effects.
  3. 3 Whether the vertical relationship between the parties gives rise to foreclosure concerns.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between IsiZinda Aluminium and the Bayside Casthouse would not result in any horizontal overlap, as IsiZinda was a newly formed entity with no operations and Bayside Casthouse supplied rolling slab exclusively to Hulamin. The vertical relationship between the parties did not give rise to foreclosure concerns, as Hulamin was already the sole customer and this would remain unchanged post-merger. Public interest concerns raised by RBIDZ, NUMSA, and the DTI were found not to be merger-specific and would not affect the current operation of the industry. The acquisition would ensure continued supply of rolling slab to Hulamin and save 78 jobs that...

Court Disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed merger between IsiZinda Aluminium (Pty) Ltd and The Bayside Casthouse Operation of Billiton Aluminium SA (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.