South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission v Beefcor Proprietary Ltd and Another (CCT 175/20)

Competition Commission v Beefcor Proprietary Ltd and Another (CCT 175/20) [2021] ZACC 9; 2021 (4) SA 408 (CC); 2021 (7) BCLR 683 (CC); [2021] HIPR 169 (CC) (13 May 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 175/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that withdrawing a competition complaint is not “completed proceedings” under section 67(2) unless the merits were finally decided.

• Interpretation Of Competition Act
• Double Jeopardy
• Access To Tribunal
• Withdrawal Of Complaint
• Administrative Fairness
• Competition-law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Beefcor (Pty) Ltd and Another (177/CAC/Nov19)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Beefcor (Pty) Ltd and Another (177/CAC/Nov19) [2020] ZACAC 5; [2020] 2 CPLR 507 (CAC); [2021] HIPR 178 (CAC) (3 August 2020)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

177/CAC/Nov19

Judges

Fisher, Rogers, Mnguni

The court held that once the Competition Commission refers a complaint to the Tribunal, the Tribunal acquires jurisdiction and the respondent is subjected to the process. Withdrawal of the complaint referral, effected by the prescribed CT8 form, brings the proceedings to an end and constitutes 'completed proceedings' under section 67(2) of the Competition Act. This interpretation aligns with constitutional protections against double jeopardy, ensuring finality and fairness for respondents. The Commission cannot reinstate or re-refer the same complaint after withdrawal, as this would allow rep…

Source excerpt

• Double Jeopardy
• Withdrawal Of Complaint
• Competition Act Section 67
• Tribunal Procedure
• Statutory Interpretation

Competition Commission v Beefcor (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR172Sep17/0TH1990ct18)

Competition Commission v Beefcor (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR172Sep17/0TH1990ct18) [2019] ZACT 69 (17 October 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR172Sep17/0TH1990ct18

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Andiswa Ndoni, Anton Roskam

The Tribunal found that the Commission's withdrawal notice constituted a withdrawal of the complaint referral against the respondents, not merely a removal from the Tribunal roll. The withdrawal did not amount to a settlement, as no written agreement or Tribunal order confirmed settlement terms. The Tribunal held that completed proceedings under section 67(2) require a decision on the conduct, which did not occur here; thus, the Commission is not precluded from initiating a new complaint if justified by new facts or evidence. However, the Commission failed to provide adequate explanation for…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Complaint
• Completed Proceedings
• Section 67 2 Competition Act
• Abuse Of Process
• Settlement Vs Withdrawal

Invensys PLC and Others v Protea Technology (Pty) Ltd and Others (31/IR/Apr11)

Invensys PLC and Others v Protea Technology (Pty) Ltd and Others (31/IR/Apr11) [2012] ZACT 97 (21 November 2012)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

31/IR/Apr11

Judges

Norman Manoim, Andiswa Ndoni, Lawrence Reyburn

The Tribunal awarded costs to Invensys after Protea withdrew a complaint referral and interim relief application without tendering costs.

• Withdrawal Of Complaint
• Costs Award
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Interim Relief
• Party And Party Costs
• Competition-law