S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation (Soc) Limited and Others (140/CAC/Mar16) [2017] ZACAC 2; [2017] 1 CPLR 65 (CAC) (28 April 2017)

S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation (Soc) Limited and Others (140/CAC/Mar16) [2017] ZACAC 2; [2017] 1 CPLR 65 (CAC) (28 April 2017)

The court held that the meaning of its order of 24 June 2016 was clear and unambiguous: the Competition Commission was entitled only to documentation possessed by the first and second respondents relevant to the agreement. The order did not grant the Commission investigative powers under s 49A of the Competition Act, nor did it authorise subpoenas or interviews. The court found no basis to issue a fresh order or to expand the Commission's remit beyond the original documentation requirement. The application for further relief was dismissed, as the relief sought fell outside the scope of the original order and the court's intention as expressed in its reasoning.

Citation
[2017] ZACAC 2
Parties
Applicant: S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition; Applicant: The Trustees for the Time Being of the Media Monitoring Project Benefit Trust; Applicant: Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited; Respondent: Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: The Competition Commission
Court
Competition Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Case Number
140/CAC/Mar16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Further Relief Following Alleged Non Compliance With Previous Court Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
D M Davis, Rogers, Victor
Legal Topics
Merger Notification, Change of Control, Powers of Competition Commission, Court Order Interpretation, Document Disclosure
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Merger Notification Change of Control Powers of Competition Commission Court Order Interpretation Document Disclosure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition

Applicant

The Trustees for the Time Being of the Media Monitoring Project Benefit Trust

Applicant

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

The Competition Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Further Relief Following Alleged Non Compliance With Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents complied with the court order of 24 June 2016 to provide all documentation relevant to the agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the Competition Commission is entitled to exercise investigative powers under s 49A of the Competition Act to fulfil its reporting obligations.
  3. 3 Whether the court should issue a fresh order authorising the Competition Commission to conduct interviews and subpoenas.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the meaning of its order of 24 June 2016 was clear and unambiguous: the Competition Commission was entitled only to documentation possessed by the first and second respondents relevant to the agreement. The order did not grant the Commission investigative powers under s 49A of the Competition Act, nor did it authorise subpoenas or interviews. The court found no basis to issue a fresh order or to expand the Commission's remit beyond the original documentation requirement. The application for further relief was dismissed, as the relief sought fell outside the scope of the original order and the court's intention as expressed in its reasoning.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application of 13 October 2016 and the further application of 13 December 2016 are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.