Competition Commission v Yara South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (93/CAC/Mar10, 94/CAC/Mar10) [2012] ZACAC 5; [2013] 1 CPLR 320 (CAC) (13 September 2012)
Court
Competition Appeal Court
Case number
93/CAC/Mar10, 94/CAC/Mar10
Judges
Davis, Mailula, Dambuza
The court granted leave to appeal in a competition-law dispute about whether the Commission may refer complaints beyond what the complainant expressly initiated.
Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08) [2010] ZACT 39; [2010] 1 CPLR 174 (CT) (8 June 2010)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
103/CR/Sep08
Judges
Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima
The Tribunal held that the Competition Commission is not required to specify all respondents at the time of initiating a complaint under section 49B(1). The Act requires only that the Commission initiate a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice, with a rational link to the relevant prohibition. The Commission's initiation documents and subsequent investigation satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for referral against Feltex, Steinhoff, and Kap. The Tribunal adopted a purposive approach, emphasizing the public interest in prosecuting anti-competitive conduct and avoiding a mecha…
Placer Dome Western Areas Joint Venture T/A South Deep v National Union of Mineworkers (J788/03) [2003] ZALC 62 (27 May 2003)
Court
Labour Court
Case number
J788/03
Judge
A A Landman
The Labour Court held that a defective CCMA referral was substantially cured, found compliance with section 64(1), and discharged the interdict against the strike.
Maarten and Others v Rubin NO and Others (C356/2000) [2000] ZALC 98; [2001] 2 BLLR 162 (LC) (15 September 2000)
Court
Labour Court
Case number
C356/2000
Judge
Stelzner
The Labour Court found that the applicants, through their amended referral and statements by counsel, unequivocally elected to proceed only on the basis of constructive dismissal, abandoning other causes of action reserved for the Labour Court. The first respondent misconstrued his function and failed to apply the correct legal principles, resulting in a denial of the applicants' right to a fair trial. The Court held that the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as formulated and that the applicants were entitled to amend their referral. Given that the result was a foregone conclusi…
