Autobi (Pty) Ltd v Transunion Auto Information Solutions (Pty) Ltd (59/CR/May12) [2013] ZACT 7 (11 February 2013)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
59/CR/May12
Judges
Lawrence Reyburn, Medi Mokuena, Takalani Madima
The Tribunal granted condonation for Autobid’s late complaint referral, finding good cause after attorney misconduct, prompt remedial steps, and no prejudice to Transunion.
AEC Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Department of Minerals and Energy (48/CR/Jun09) [2010] ZACT 12; [2009] 2 CPLR 379 (CT) (8 February 2010)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
48/CR/Jun09
Judges
N Manoim, Y Carrim, M Mokuena
The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction over a complaint against a state regulator, finding the Department of Minerals and Energy was not a “firm” under the Competition Act.
The Tribunal found that Mandla-Matla failed to establish that the exclusivity clauses and refusal to provide distribution information by Independent Newspapers resulted in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition or anti-competitive effect as required by sections 5(1), 8(c), and 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act. Evidence showed that Mandla-Matla and its new distributor, Natal Witness, were able to set up alternative distribution networks within a short period, indicating low barriers to entry and minimal market foreclosure. The rapid expansion of the isiZulu newspaper market followi…
Avalon Group (Pty) Ltd and Another and Old Mutual Properties and Others (02/CR/Jan01,25/CR/May01) [2002] ZACT 44 (8 July 2002)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
02/CR/Jan01,25/CR/May01
Judge
N. Manoim
The Tribunal ordered discovery of the later Gateway lease and some Ster-Kinekor marketing documents, rejected broad discovery requests, and refused to postpone argument on points in limine.
South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd and Another and SAD Holdings Ltd and Another [2000] ZACT 46 (24 November 2000)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
04/IR/Oct/1999
Judges
D. H. Lewis, C. Qunta, F.C.v N. Fourie
The Competition Tribunal granted interim relief against SAD Holdings, finding sufficient evidence of exclusionary conduct under section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act.
DW Intergrators CC and SAS Institute (Pty) Ltd (14/IR/Nov99) [2000] ZACT 16 (1 May 2000)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
14/IR/NOV99
Judges
D.H. Lewis, M.G. Holden, U. Bhoola
The Competition Tribunal dismissed DW Integrators’ application for interim relief, finding that it had not proved SAS’s dominance, irreparable harm, or frustration of the Act.