South Africa Case Law

Continental Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (157/CAC/Nov 2017)

Continental Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (157/CAC/Nov 2017) [2018] ZACAC 9; [2018] 2 CPLR 476 (CAC) (11 October 2018)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

157/CAC/Nov 2017

Judge

Unterhalter

The Competition Commission failed to establish litigation privilege over the requested transcripts and correspondence, as it did not provide factual evidence demonstrating that litigation was contemplated as likely at the relevant time. The Commission's reliance on inferences from investigative actions, such as executing search warrants and initiating complaints, was insufficient to prove privilege. Furthermore, Commission Rule 14, which restricts public access to certain information, does not apply to litigants in referral proceedings, as the duty of disclosure in adversarial litigation is b…

Source excerpt

• Discovery In Competition Proceedings
• Litigation Privilege
• Restricted Information
• Leniency Applications
• Fair Hearing
• Commission Rules

Mondi Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Another (47050/13)

Mondi Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Another (47050/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 910 (12 November 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

47050/13

Judge

Legodi

High Court review-related interlocutory ruling on disclosure of Competition Commission records in a complaint initiation challenge.

• Rule 53 Review
• Confidential Information
• Initiation Of Complaint
• Administrative Action
• Principle Of Legality
• Restricted Information

Competition Commission v Telkom SA Ltd; Telkom SA Ltd v Competition Commission (73/CR/Oct09)

Competition Commission v Telkom SA Ltd; Telkom SA Ltd v Competition Commission (73/CR/Oct09) [2013] ZACT 9; [2013] 1 CPLR 305 (CT) (13 February 2013)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

73/CR/Oct09

Judges

Y Carrim, A Wessels, T Madima

The Tribunal found that Rule 14(1)(d) is subordinate legislation binding on the Tribunal and other courts, and applies to proceedings before the Tribunal. The documents listed in the Commission's supplementary affidavit, including internal reports, expert opinions, peer reviews, notes, benchmarking reports, emails, memoranda, presentations, and calculations, all fall within the ambit of restricted information under Rule 14(1)(d). The Commission provided sufficient detail to justify the restriction, and Telkom did not challenge the descriptions with further affidavits or requests for detail. T…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Restricted Information
• Litigation Privilege
• Competition Act
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Computicket (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (20/CR/Apr10)

Computicket (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (20/CR/Apr10) [2012] ZACT 20; [2012] 1 CPLR 183 (CT) (22 March 2012)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

20/CR/Apr10

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels, Lawrence Reyburn

The Tribunal found the Commission's explanation for filing a supplementary affidavit reasonable, as it was prompted by Computicket's challenge to its bona fides and was intended to ensure all relevant facts were before the Tribunal. The supplementary affidavit was material to the determination of the dismissal application and its inclusion would not prejudice Computicket. The Commission's conduct in discovery and document management was attributed to poor case management rather than mala fides, and the application to strike out the additional documents was dismissed. The Tribunal held that in…

Source excerpt

• Restricted Information
• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Litigation Privilege
• Administrative Action Review
• Strike Out Application

Competition Commission v Arcelor Mittal South Africa Ltd and Others (61/CR/Sep09)

Competition Commission v Arcelor Mittal South Africa Ltd and Others (61/CR/Sep09) [2010] ZACT 60; [2010] 2 CPLR 386 (CT) (3 September 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

61/CR/Sep09

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Medi Mokuena

The Tribunal held that documents sought by AMSA and Cape Gate remain restricted information under Rule 14(1)(e) of the Commission Rules, as the Commission has reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold them under section 37(1)(b) of PAIA. The leniency application and related documents are subject to litigation privilege, as they were provided in contemplation of litigation, regardless of whether they were prepared by the Commission or by Scaw's attorneys. The Tribunal found no basis for the applicants' argument that privilege was waived by reference in the complaint referral, as waiver r…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Litigation Privilege
• Leniency Applications
• Restricted Information
• Competition Act Section 4
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Astral Operations Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (74/CR/Jun08)

Astral Operations Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (74/CR/Jun08) [2010] ZACT 4; [2009] 2 CPLR 498 (CT) (25 January 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

74/CR/Jun08

Judges

N Manoim, Y Carrim, A Wessels

The Tribunal held that the documents sought by Astral, including internal memoranda, investigation notes, and reports, are restricted under rule 14(1)(d) of the Commission rules and are not subject to disclosure. The Tribunal acknowledged its discretion under rule 15(1) but found no compelling reason to exercise it in Astral's favour. The Tribunal distinguished between criminal and administrative proceedings, noting that respondents in competition matters do not face imprisonment and do not enjoy the same fair trial rights as accused persons. The Tribunal found that the policy rationale for r…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Restricted Information
• Fair Hearing Rights
• Internal Commission Documents