Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Du Plessis and Another, In Re: Linpac Plastics Ltd and Others v Du Plessis and Others (019513) [2014] ZACT 64; [2014] 2 CPLR 516 (CT) (6 November 2014)

Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Du Plessis and Another, In Re: Linpac Plastics Ltd and Others v Du Plessis and Others (019513) [2014] ZACT 64; [2014] 2 CPLR 516 (CT) (6 November 2014)

The Tribunal held that the prescription period in section 67(1) of the Competition Act does not apply to referrals made by a civil court under section 65(2)(b). The language of section 67(1) is specific to complaint referrals initiated under section 49B and does not extend to court referrals, which are governed by a distinct process. The Tribunal distinguished between the public nature of complaint referrals and the private nature of court referrals, noting that the latter bypasses the Competition Commission and is limited to the parties in the civil suit. The Tribunal found that imposing the prescription period on court referrals would unjustifiably limit the right of access to courts...

Citation
[2014] ZACT 64
Parties
Plaintiff: Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Atlantic Forming (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Jacobus Petrus Hendrik Du Plessis; Defendant: Judex Burnett
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2014
Case Number
019513
Procedural Posture
Point in Limine / Preliminary Objection Before Tribunal on Prescription Under Competition Act
Outcome
Point in limine dismissed. The Tribunal will proceed to consider the merits of the referral.
Judges
Norman Manoim, Andiswa Ndoni, Mondo Mazwai
Legal Topics
Prescription Period, Court Referral, Prohibited Practices, Section 65 Referral, Section 67 Limitation
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Prescription Period Court Referral Prohibited Practices Section 65 Referral Section 67 Limitation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Atlantic Forming (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Jacobus Petrus Hendrik Du Plessis

Defendant

Judex Burnett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Point in Limine / Preliminary Objection Before Tribunal on Prescription Under Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the three-year prescription period in section 67(1) of the Competition Act apply to referrals made by a civil court under section 65(2)(b)?
  2. 2 Is the Tribunal barred from hearing a court referral if the alleged prohibited practice ceased more than three years before referral?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the prescription period in section 67(1) of the Competition Act does not apply to referrals made by a civil court under section 65(2)(b). The language of section 67(1) is specific to complaint referrals initiated under section 49B and does not extend to court referrals, which are governed by a distinct process. The Tribunal distinguished between the public nature of complaint referrals and the private nature of court referrals, noting that the latter bypasses the Competition Commission and is limited to the parties in the civil suit. The Tribunal found that imposing the prescription period on court referrals would unjustifiably limit the right of access to courts...

Court Disposition

Point in limine dismissed. The Tribunal will proceed to consider the merits of the referral.

Orders

  • The point in limine is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.