Tiger Equity One (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission (019174) [2014] ZACT 91 (24 July 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZACT 91
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- N Manoim, T Madima, A Roskam
- Case number
- 019174
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- N Manoim, T Madima, A Roskam
- Case number
- 019174
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) was not issued in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the Competition Act. The applicants demonstrated that the notice was procedurally unfair and did not meet the standards of legality required for administrative action. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the notice.
Court disposition
The Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) issued on 13 June 2014 is set aside.
Orders
- The Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) issued on 13 June 2014 under Competition Commission case number: 2014May0246 is set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tiger Equity One (Pty) Ltd
ApplicantMurray and Roberts Ltd
ApplicantCompetition Commission
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) issued on 13 June 2014 should be set aside.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) was improperly issued and should be set aside as it did not comply with the requirements of the Competition Act and was procedurally unfair.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the Notice CC 13(2) was validly issued in accordance with its powers under the Competition Act and that the applicants had not demonstrated any procedural irregularity or substantive unfairness.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
Administrative actions by the Competition Commission must comply with the requirements of procedural fairness and legality under the Competition Act.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) was not issued in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the Competition Act. The applicants demonstrated that the notice was procedurally unfair and did not meet the standards of legality required for administrative action. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the notice.
Court disposition
The Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) issued on 13 June 2014 is set aside.
- The Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) issued on 13 June 2014 under Competition Commission case number: 2014May0246 is set aside.
Source and reliance status
Competition Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Competition Tribunal
Order
COMPETITSON
TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No.: 019174
In the matter between:
Tiger Equity One (Pty) Ltd...............................................................................Applicants
and
Murray and Roberts Ltd
And
Competition Commission..............................................................................Respondent
Panel: N Manoim (Presiding Member)
T Madima (Tribunal Member)
A Roskam (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 24 July 2014
Decided on : 24 July 2014
ORDER
Having heard the parties, the Tribunal grants the following order:
The Competition Commission’s Notice CC 13(2) issued on 13 June 2014 under Competition Commission case number: 2014May0246 is set aside.
24 July 2014
Date
Presiding Member
N Manoim
Concurring: T Madima and A Roskam
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.