Leonard and Others v Nedbank Limited and Others (84/CR/AUG07) [2008] ZACT 37 (21 May 2008)

Leonard and Others v Nedbank Limited and Others (84/CR/AUG07) [2008] ZACT 37 (21 May 2008)

The Tribunal found that the High Court referral did not properly describe or refer the collusion and merger complaints, as the language used was ambiguous and failed to specify the prohibited conduct. The applicants must re-approach the High Court for a clear referral if they wish to pursue these complaints. Regarding the tying complaint, the Tribunal held that the practice ceased in May 2001 and the complaint was only initiated in October 2004, exceeding the three-year prescription period under section 67(1). The applicants' argument that ongoing deductions constituted a continuing practice was rejected, as these were consequences of the alleged conduct, not the conduct itself. The stay...

Citation
[2008] ZACT 37
Parties
Applicant: Raymond Leonard; Applicant: Global Technology Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Accurate Trading 34 (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Accurate Trading 44 (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Gensec NSA Equity Fund Trust
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Case Number
84/CR/AUG07
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Reasons for Order Following Stay Application and Points in Limine
Outcome
Stay application dismissed. Collusion and merger complaints not properly referred. Tying complaint prescribed. Costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
N Manoim, D Lewis, T Orleyn
Legal Topics
Section 65 Referral, Tying and Bundling, Merger Notification, Collusion, Prescription, Costs Award
Competition Law Civil Procedure Section 65 Referral Tying and Bundling Merger Notification Collusion Prescription Costs Award

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Leonard

Applicant

Global Technology Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Accurate Trading 34 (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Accurate Trading 44 (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Gensec NSA Equity Fund Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Reasons for Order Following Stay Application and Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collusion and merger complaints were properly referred to the Tribunal by the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether the tying complaint is precluded by prescription under section 67 of the Competition Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should stay proceedings pending further High Court referral.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the High Court referral did not properly describe or refer the collusion and merger complaints, as the language used was ambiguous and failed to specify the prohibited conduct. The applicants must re-approach the High Court for a clear referral if they wish to pursue these complaints. Regarding the tying complaint, the Tribunal held that the practice ceased in May 2001 and the complaint was only initiated in October 2004, exceeding the three-year prescription period under section 67(1). The applicants' argument that ongoing deductions constituted a continuing practice was rejected, as these were consequences of the alleged conduct, not the conduct itself. The stay...

Court Disposition

Stay application dismissed. Collusion and merger complaints not properly referred. Tying complaint prescribed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The stay application is dismissed.
  • It is declared that the collusion and merger complaints have not been properly referred to the Tribunal by the High Court.