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)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' conduct in lodging a second interim relief application constituted an abuse of the court process.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the interim relief application justified dismissal for abuse of process.
  3. 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.