Schering (Pty) Ltd and Others v New United Pharmaceutical Distributors (Pty) Ltd. [formerly Mainstreet 2 (Pty) Ltd] and Others [2001] ZACAC 5; [2001] ZACAC 5 (30 November 2001)
The court found that the respondents' conduct in lodging the second interim relief application did not constitute an abuse of the court process. The delay in prosecuting the application was attributable in part to the appellants' own actions, including appeals and jurisdictional challenges. The use of affidavits from the earlier application was not improper, as the respondents provided a new founding affidavit detailing changes since the first application and confirmed that unchanged circumstances persisted. The conditional nature of the second application was justified by the procedural context and did not prejudice the appellants. The court held that there was no behaviour by the...
- Citation
- [2001] ZACAC 5
- Parties
- Appellant: Schering (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: MSD (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Novartis SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Roche Products (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Boehringer-Ingelhem Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Bristol Myers Squibb (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Abbott Laboratories SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Bayer (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Eli Lilly SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Aventis Pharma (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: International Healthcare Distributors (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Sanofi-Synthelobo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: New United Pharmaceutical Distributors (Pty) Ltd [formerly Mainstreet 2 (Pty) Ltd]; Respondent: Natal Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Durban; Respondent: Midlands Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Pietermaritzburg; Respondent: East Cape Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Eastern Cape; Respondent: Free State Buying Association Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Bloemfontein (KEMCO); Respondent: Pharmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Respondent: AGM Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a Docmed; Respondent: L’Etangs Wholesale Chemists t/a L’Etangs; Respondent: Resepkor (Pty) Ltd t/a Reskor Pharmaceutical Wholesalers; Respondent: The Competition Commission
- Court
- Competition Appeal Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 30 November 2001
- Case Number
- 11/CAC/AUG01
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Competition Tribunal Decision Refusing Dismissal of Interim Relief Application
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
- Judges
- Jali, Davis, Mailula
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Process, Interim Relief, Locus Standi, Delay in Proceedings, Costs Award
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Schering (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
MSD (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Novartis SA (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Roche Products (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Boehringer-Ingelhem Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Bristol Myers Squibb (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Abbott Laboratories SA (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Bayer (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Eli Lilly SA (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Aventis Pharma (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
International Healthcare Distributors (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Sanofi-Synthelobo (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
New United Pharmaceutical Distributors (Pty) Ltd [formerly Mainstreet 2 (Pty) Ltd]
Respondent
Natal Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Durban
Respondent
Midlands Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Pietermaritzburg
Respondent
East Cape Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Eastern Cape
Respondent
Free State Buying Association Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Bloemfontein (KEMCO)
Respondent
Pharmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Respondent
AGM Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a Docmed
Respondent
L’Etangs Wholesale Chemists t/a L’Etangs
Respondent
Resepkor (Pty) Ltd t/a Reskor Pharmaceutical Wholesalers
Respondent
The Competition Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Competition Tribunal Decision Refusing Dismissal of Interim Relief Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents' conduct in lodging a second interim relief application constituted an abuse of the court process.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the interim relief application justified dismissal for abuse of process.
- 3 Whether the use of affidavits from the earlier application rendered the second application defective.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents' conduct in lodging the second interim relief application did not constitute an abuse of the court process. The delay in prosecuting the application was attributable in part to the appellants' own actions, including appeals and jurisdictional challenges. The use of affidavits from the earlier application was not improper, as the respondents provided a new founding affidavit detailing changes since the first application and confirmed that unchanged circumstances persisted. The conditional nature of the second application was justified by the procedural context and did not prejudice the appellants. The court held that there was no behaviour by the...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs incurred upon the employment of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment