South Africa Case Law

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others (CCT 132/22)

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others (CCT 132/22) [2023] ZACC 19; 2023 (10) BCLR 1153 (CC) (26 June 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 132/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Mathopo J, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal, holding that Bliss Brands had submitted to the Advertising Regulatory Board’s jurisdiction by participating without objection.

• Jurisdiction Of Non Statutory Bodies
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Freedom Of Expression
• Freedom Of Association
• Self Regulation In Advertising
• Procedural Fairness

Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd (786/21)

Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd (786/21) [2022] ZASCA 51; [2022] 2 All SA 607 (SCA); 2022 (4) SA 57 (SCA); [2022] HIPR 201 (SCA) (12 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

786/21

Judges

Petse DP, Schippers JA, Plasket JA, Hughes JA, Matojane AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Bliss Brands had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the ARB by participating fully in its processes without objection, thereby precluding any challenge to jurisdiction or the constitutionality of the ARB's MOI or Code. The ARB's powers are lawfully sourced in its MOI and Code, which constitute empowering provisions under PAJA. The ARB may consider complaints regarding advertisements by non-members for the benefit of its members, and its rulings are not binding on non-members unless they submit to jurisdiction. The High Court erred by raising con…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Private Bodies
• Self Regulation In Advertising
• Administrative Action Under Paja
• Freedom Of Expression
• Freedom Of Association
• Access To Court

Nestle (South Africa) Pty Ltd v Mars Incorporated (333/99)

Nestle (South Africa) Pty Ltd v Mars Incorporated (333/99) [2001] ZASCA 76; [2001] 4 All SA 315 (A); 2001 (4) SA 542 (SCA) (31 May 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

333/99

Judges

Nienaber, Harms, Mthiyane, Nugent, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the ASA was contractually obliged to consider and rule upon complaints made to it in accordance with its Code of Advertising Practice. The defence of lis alibi pendens was found to be inapplicable because the ASA and the Registrar of Trade Marks are distinct tribunals with different functions, powers, and parties. The ASA could not abdicate or defer its responsibility to the Registrar, even if some aspects of their respective inquiries might coincide. The court further found that Mars Incorporated had properly authorised the proceedings, either at the out…

Source excerpt

• Self Regulation In Advertising
• Contractual Obligations Of Industry Bodies
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Trade Mark Registration
• Jurisdiction Of Industry Bodies