PrimeGrowth Retail Property (Pty) Ltd and Others v Hyprop Investments Ltd (LM209Mar21) [2021] ZACT 41 (14 April 2021)

PrimeGrowth Retail Property (Pty) Ltd and Others v Hyprop Investments Ltd (LM209Mar21) [2021] ZACT 41 (14 April 2021)

The Tribunal found that the merger would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for rentable retail space within a 15km radius of the Target Property, as the merged entity's market share would be less than 5% and sufficient competition remains. No third parties raised concerns, and the merging parties undertook that no retrenchments would occur. The transaction does not give rise to any public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Citation
[2021] ZACT 41
Parties
Applicant: PrimeGrowth Retail Property (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Atterbury Mile (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Twin City Trading 2 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hyprop Investments Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Case Number
LM209Mar21
Procedural Posture
Merger Application / Merger Approval
Outcome
Merger unconditionally approved.
Judges
Y Carrim, AW Wessels, A Ndoni
Legal Topics
Large Merger, Horizontal Overlap, Market Share Analysis, Public Interest, No Retrenchments
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Large Merger Horizontal Overlap Market Share Analysis Public Interest No Retrenchments

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PrimeGrowth Retail Property (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Atterbury Mile (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Twin City Trading 2 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hyprop Investments Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merger Application / Merger Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed merger would substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for rentable retail space within a 15km radius of the Target Property.
  2. 2 Whether the merger gives rise to any public interest concerns, including retrenchments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the merger would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for rentable retail space within a 15km radius of the Target Property, as the merged entity's market share would be less than 5% and sufficient competition remains. No third parties raised concerns, and the merging parties undertook that no retrenchments would occur. The transaction does not give rise to any public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court Disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The merger between the abovementioned parties is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).