South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission v Primedia Limited and Another (CR191Mar12)

Competition Commission v Primedia Limited and Another (CR191Mar12) [2018] ZACT 11; [2018] 1 CPLR 144 (CT) (5 February 2018)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR191Mar12

Judges

Anton Roskam, lmraan Valodia, Enver Daniels

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement between Ster-Kinekor and Nu Metro was concluded before the Competition Act came into operation. For a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(ii) to be established, there must be evidence of actions or discussions directed at implementing the agreement after the Act commenced. The evidence did not support the Commission's contention that the settlement agreement was implemented post-commencement. Witnesses from Ster-Kinekor credibly testified that they were unaware of the agreement and did not act in accordance with it, and the only attempt to enforce…

Source excerpt

• Market Allocation
• Horizontal Agreements
• Section 4 Competition Act
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Successor Liability

Competition Commission v Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) and Others; In re: Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) and Another v Competition Commission (CR166Dec14)

Competition Commission v Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) and Others; In re: Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) and Another v Competition Commission (CR166Dec14) [2016] ZACT 87 (25 August 2016)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR166Dec14

Judges

Y Carrim, M Mokuena, A Wessels

The Tribunal found that the September 2009 complaint initiation by the Competition Commission was valid and sufficiently broad to include Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) Ltd under the category of 'other firms' in the construction industry. The jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Appeal and Competition Appeal Court confirms that the Commission need not know all parties at the outset and may amend its complaint as further information becomes available. The Tribunal held that the effects of the collusive tendering continued until at least the final payment in February 2009, so the compl…

Source excerpt

• Collusive Tendering
• Cover Pricing
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Prescription Of Complaints
• Successor Liability
• Characterisation Of Conduct

Louw and Others v Absa Trust Limited and Others (19085/2007)

Louw and Others v Absa Trust Limited and Others (19085/2007) [2014] ZAWCHC 159 (28 October 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19085/2007

Judge

Binns-Ward

The High Court dismissed a trust-breach claim, holding that Absa Trust was not the liable successor and that estoppel against it was not proved.

• Testamentary Trusts
• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Successor Liability
• Prescription
• Estoppel
• Distribution Of Trust Assets

PriceWaterHouseCoopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-Operative Ltd and Another (451/2012, 468/2012)

PriceWaterHouseCoopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-Operative Ltd and Another (451/2012, 468/2012) [2013] ZASCA 123 (23 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

451/2012, 468/2012

Judges

NAVSA, BRAND, TSHIQI, MAJIEDT, SWAIN

The Supreme Court of Appeal granted expanded leave to appeal on several issues, including costs orders and a disputed appeal agreement, but excluded prescription.

• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Orders
• Successor Liability
• Prescription
• Hearsay Evidence
• Leave-to-appeal

Chagi and Others v Special Investigating Unit (89/07)

Chagi and Others v Special Investigating Unit (89/07) [2007] ZASCA 159; [2008] 2 All SA 8 (SCA); 2008 (1) SACR 329 (SCA); 2008 (7) BCLR 697 (SCA) (29 November 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

89/07

Judges

NAVSA, BRAND, JAFTA, PONNAN, COMBRINCK

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a new Special Investigating Unit did not inherit liability for alleged wrongful acts of its predecessor.

• Successor Liability
• Special Investigating Units Act
• State Liability
• Defamation
• Malicious Prosecution
• Successor-liability