South Africa Case Law

Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23)

Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23) [2023] ZACT 23 (8 May 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR198Mar23

Judges

J Wilson, M Mazwai, L Mncube

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of a prohibited practice under section 8(1)(d)(ii) or section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act. While Audatex is prima facie dominant in the relevant estimation market, the evidence did not show that the service provided was 'scarce' or that Apollo's removal from the platform would exclude it from the parts procurement market. Alternative solutions for insurer customers were available, and there was insufficient evidence of anti-competitive effects or irreparable harm. Audatex's concern regarding protection of confide…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Refusal To Supply
• Interim Relief
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Anti Competitive Effects

Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited South Africa v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (201/CAC/JUN22)

Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited South Africa v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (201/CAC/JUN22) [2022] ZACAC 9; [2022] 2 CPLR 23 (CAC) (1 August 2022)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

201/CAC/JUN22

Judges

M Victor, N Manoim, L Nuku

The majority of the Competition Appeal Court found that eMedia had made out a prima facie case for interim relief. MultiChoice's refusal to broadcast eMedia's channels on the DStv platform, given its overwhelming dominance and lack of realistic alternatives for channel providers, amounted to exclusionary conduct and a refusal to supply a scarce service. The DStv platform is a scarce distribution facility, and eMedia's inability to access it would cause irreparable harm, limiting its ability to compete and grow. The balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief, as MultiChoice would…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Refusal To Supply
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Interim Relief
• Scarce Services
• Balance Of Convenience

Bulb Man (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Hadeco (Pty) Ltd (81/IR/Apr06)

Bulb Man (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Hadeco (Pty) Ltd (81/IR/Apr06) [2006] ZACT 86; [2006] 2 CPLR 559 (CT) (28 November 2006)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

81/IR/APR06

Judges

DH Lewis, N Manoim, M.T.K. Moerane

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any evidence of anti-competitive effect resulting from the respondent's refusal to supply on agency terms. Even assuming the respondent's dominance and adopting the applicant's market definitions, there was no credible theory of competition harm. The respondent's conduct was motivated by a breakdown in the business relationship, not by an attempt to wield market power or exclude the applicant for anti-competitive purposes. The applicant's evidence regarding changes in margins offered by LFB did not demonstrate harm caused by the respon…

Source excerpt

• Refusal To Supply
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Price Discrimination
• Dominance
• Interim Relief
• Anti Competitive Effect

Nuco Chrome (Pty) Ltd and Xstrata Rand York Minerals (Pty) Ltd (31/IR/Apr04)

Nuco Chrome (Pty) Ltd and Xstrata Rand York Minerals (Pty) Ltd (31/IR/Apr04) [2004] ZACT 51; [2004] 2 CPLR 341 (CT) (18 August 2004)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

31/IR/Apr04

Judges

D.H. Lewis, N.M. Manoim, L.P. Reyburn

The Tribunal dismissed Nuco Chrome’s interim-relief application, finding insufficient evidence of a prohibited agreement, dominance, or anti-competitive effect in the chrome sand market.

• Vertical Agreements
• Refusal To Supply
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Price Discrimination
• Interim Relief
• Market Definition

York Timbers Ltd v SA Forestry Ltd (09/CAC/May01)

York Timbers Ltd v SA Forestry Ltd (09/CAC/May01) [2001] ZACAC 3; [2001-2002] CPLR 94 (CAC) (18 September 2001)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

09/CAC/May01

Judges

Mailula, Davis, Jali

The Competition Appeal Court dismissed York Timbers’ appeal, holding that the reduced sawlog supply was a contractual dispute, not a prohibited refusal to supply.

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Refusal To Supply
• Interim Relief
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Dispute
• Abuse-of-dominance

York Timbers Ltd and SA Forestry Company Ltd (15/IR/Feb01)

York Timbers Ltd and SA Forestry Company Ltd (15/IR/Feb01) [2001] ZACT 19 (9 May 2001)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

15/IR/Feb01

Judges

D.H Lewis, N.M. Manoim, P Maponya

The Tribunal dismissed York Timbers’ interim relief bid, holding that although SAFCOL was dominant in the relevant saw-log market, the pleaded refusal to supply was not shown to be an abuse of dominance.

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Refusal To Supply
• Interim Relief
• Market Definition
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Abuse-of-dominance