South Africa Case Law

Media 24 Proprietary Limited v Competition Commission of South Africa (146/CAC/Sep16)

Media 24 Proprietary Limited v Competition Commission of South Africa (146/CAC/Sep16) [2018] ZACAC 1; 2018 (4) SA 278 (CAC); [2018] 1 CPLR 56 (CAC) (19 March 2018)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

146/CAC/Sep16

Judges

Davis JP, Rogers JA, Boqwana JA

The Competition Appeal Court held that the appropriate benchmark for assessing predatory pricing under section 8(c) of the Competition Act is average avoidable costs (AAC), not average total costs (ATC) plus intention. The Tribunal erred by applying ATC and predatory intent, which is not supported by the statutory wording or economic principles. The evidence showed that Forum's revenue exceeded its avoidable costs during the complaint period, and the inclusion of certain cost categories as avoidable was not justified on the probabilities. Opportunity costs should not be included in AAC. As th…

Source excerpt

• Predatory Pricing
• Average Avoidable Costs
• Dominant Firm Conduct
• Exclusionary Practices
• Cost Benchmarking
• Competition Act Section 8

Competition Commission v South African Breweries Ltd and Others (134/CR/DEC07)

Competition Commission v South African Breweries Ltd and Others (134/CR/DEC07) [2010] ZACT 65; [2010] 2 CPLR 401 (CT) (15 October 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

134/CR/DEC07

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Merle Holden

The Competition Tribunal ordered limited production of Metcash documents relevant to a price-discrimination dispute, while refusing broader and more intrusive requests.

• Price Discrimination
• Dominant Firm Conduct
• Equivalence Of Transactions
• Production Of Documents
• Confidentiality Orders
• Competition-law

Media24 Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (18/X/APR10)

Media24 Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (18/X/APR10) [2010] ZACT 44; [2010] 2 CPLR 418 (CT) (8 July 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

18/X/APR10

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels

The Tribunal dismissed a challenge to a Competition Commissioner summons, holding that the document requests and interrogatories were lawful, relevant, and not void for vagueness.

• Predatory Pricing
• Summons Validity
• Dominant Firm Conduct
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Procedural Fairness
• Competition-law