Cancun Trading No 24 CC and Others and Seven-Eleven Corp SA (Pty) Ltd (Dissenting) (18/IR/Dec99) [2000] ZACT 11 (12 April 2000)

Cancun Trading No 24 CC and Others and Seven-Eleven Corp SA (Pty) Ltd (Dissenting) (18/IR/Dec99) [2000] ZACT 11 (12 April 2000)

The dissenting member found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent engaged in minimum resale price maintenance as prohibited by section 5(2) of the Competition Act. Clause 9.1 of the franchise agreement did not, on its own, constitute evidence of such a practice, and the applicants' affidavits contained only vague or hearsay allegations. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish a causal link between their financial difficulties and the alleged restrictive practice. The requirements for interim relief under section 59(1), including proof of serious irreparable damage or frustration of the purposes of the Act, were not met. The dissenting member...

Citation
[2000] ZACT 11
Parties
Applicant: Cancun Trading No 24 CC; Applicant: Henlin Trust; Applicant: H & M Lindeque Trust; Applicant: Maltea Trading CC; Applicant: Rietvlei Trading CC; Applicant: Rosa Trading CC; Applicant: Prism Merchandise Enterprises CC; Applicant: Ritima CC; Applicant: Cancun Trading No 26 CC; Applicant: Rogai Trading CC; Applicant: Wahda CC; Applicant: Eloff Anderson Pederson; Applicant: Ruiker Trading CC; Respondent: Seven Eleven Corporation SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Case Number
18/IR/Dec99
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Dissenting Decision on Application for Interim Relief Under Section 59 of the Competition Act
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed.
Judges
C. Qunta
Legal Topics
Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, Interim Relief, Restrictive Practices, Franchise Agreements, Balance of Convenience
Competition Law Minimum Resale Price Maintenance Interim Relief Restrictive Practices Franchise Agreements Balance of Convenience

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cancun Trading No 24 CC

Applicant

Henlin Trust

Applicant

H & M Lindeque Trust

Applicant

Maltea Trading CC

Applicant

Rietvlei Trading CC

Applicant

Rosa Trading CC

Applicant

Prism Merchandise Enterprises CC

Applicant

Ritima CC

Applicant

Cancun Trading No 26 CC

Applicant

Rogai Trading CC

Applicant

Wahda CC

Applicant

Eloff Anderson Pederson

Applicant

Ruiker Trading CC

Applicant

Seven Eleven Corporation SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Dissenting Decision on Application for Interim Relief Under Section 59 of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent engaged in minimum resale price maintenance in contravention of section 5(2) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for interim relief under section 59(1) of the Competition Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants demonstrated serious irreparable damage or frustration of the purposes of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The dissenting member found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent engaged in minimum resale price maintenance as prohibited by section 5(2) of the Competition Act. Clause 9.1 of the franchise agreement did not, on its own, constitute evidence of such a practice, and the applicants' affidavits contained only vague or hearsay allegations. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish a causal link between their financial difficulties and the alleged restrictive practice. The requirements for interim relief under section 59(1), including proof of serious irreparable damage or frustration of the purposes of the Act, were not met. The dissenting member...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief under section 59 of the Competition Act is refused.
  • No order is made as to costs.