|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2011 |
|
|
The Tribunal approved a private‑equity acquisition of a catering and refrigeration equipment supplier as non‑anticompetitive and unconditional.
Competition law – merger approval – no horizontal/vertical overlap – supply of baking, catering and refrigeration equipment – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
26 October 2011 |
|
Acquisition of agricultural lending book unlikely to substantially lessen competition; merger approved unconditionally.
Competition law – merger review – market defined as wholesale (upstream) and retail (downstream) agricultural finance; horizontal overlap in downstream retail lending with post‑merger share 14.15% – insufficient to substantially lessen competition; vertical integration – foreclosure unlikely due to fragmented market and alternative finance; no public interest concerns (employment).
|
25 October 2011 |
|
Holistic reading of an initiating document showed complainant intention to complain; referral valid against first two respondents but not third.
* Competition law – initiation and referral of complaints – distinction between information (s49B(2)(a)) and a complaint (s49B(2)(b)) – intention of complainant to be derived from initiating document read holistically.
* Competition law – referral must be based on same facta probanda as initiating document; Commission may add particulars (s50(3)(a)(iii)).
* Application of Yara – headings and structure are contextual indicia of intention; holistic assessment required.
* Jurisdiction – referral against third respondent (joined by amendment) not supported by initiating document.
|
20 October 2011 |
|
Applicant’s Part A relief and intervention applications in two competition matters postponed sine die by agreement; no costs ordered.
Competition tribunal — procedural order by agreement — postponement sine die of Part A relief application and intervention applications in two related matters; no order as to costs.
|
14 October 2011 |
|
The acquiring firm's control of the target is unlikely to substantially lessen competition; merger unconditionally approved.
Merger control — horizontal overlap in intercity buses, extra heavy duty trucks, and city/commuter buses — market share assessment and volatility; vertical effects — input/customer foreclosure — alternative body-builders and buyer countervailing power; no public interest concerns; unconditional approval.
|
14 October 2011 |
|
Unconditional approval of a telecom acquisition where no horizontal overlap and negligible vertical integration were found.
Competition law – Merger approval; no horizontal overlap; negligible vertical integration (approx. 0.0027% of turnover); low foreclosure risk; dynamic telecom sector; no public interest concerns.
|
12 October 2011 |
|
A large property-centre merger was approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition and raised no public-interest concerns.
Competition law – Merger control; Horizontal effects – geographic market for major regional retail centres; Vertical relationships and cross-shareholdings – foreclosure risk; Public interest – no adverse effects; Approval without conditions.
|
12 October 2011 |
|
Acquirer’s increase to majority shareholding did not substantially lessen competition; merger approved without conditions.
* Competition law – Merger approval – Large merger increasing majority shareholding – Assessment whether transaction substantially prevents or lessens competition. * Corporate governance – Cross‑directorship concerns and pre-existing control issues – not necessarily merger-specific. * Procedural/jurisdictional limits – Competition authority not a forum for private contractual timing disputes (pre-emptive rights). * Public interest – Employment impact considered and no adverse effect found.
|
3 October 2011 |
|
The Tribunal approved the applicant’s property‑portfolio acquisition, finding no substantial lessening of competition or public interest issues.
Competition law – merger control – property merger – market definition (Grade A office space, Sandton) – low post‑merger market share – many competitors and countervailing buyer power – no public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
3 October 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
Tribunal conditionally approves small merger, imposing interoperability remedies to prevent technical foreclosure while allowing pro‑competitive integration.
Competition — Small merger — Potential technical foreclosure via interoperability/file‑format withdrawal — Appropriate behavioural remedy: continued provision of file formats (free) and APIs/SDKs (reasonable market terms) — Proportionality and duration (5 years).
|
30 September 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved a merger finding distinct markets with no substantial lessening of competition, and no public interest concerns.
Merger control – market definition – no product overlap between confectionery and baby‑diaper markets; no substantial lessening of competition; public interest (employment) considered and found not engaged; acquisition via subsidiary conferring sole control.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
Acquisition of a 50% share in a lettings enterprise approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
Competition — Merger control — Property sector — Acquisition of 50% undivided share in a letting enterprise — Rentable light industrial space — Greater Germiston node — Low post‑merger market share (6.73%) — Single long‑term tenant — No substantial lessening of competition — No public interest concerns.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
A bank’s 45% acquisition of an IT distributor raised only minimal vertical concerns and was approved unconditionally.
Merger control — assessment of horizontal and vertical overlaps — IT equipment distribution vs banking services — minimal vertical integration (0.7% turnover) — financial brokering not equivalent to financing — no public interest concerns — merger approved without conditions.
|
26 September 2011 |
|
The Tribunal approved the merger, finding no competition or public interest concerns and no horizontal or vertical overlap.
* Competition law – merger approval – assessment of horizontal overlap and vertical integration; no overlap found.
* Public interest – no public interest concerns identified.
* Structure – acquisition of 49% shareholding with cession of loan claims; acquiring firm to obtain control.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
The Tribunal unconditionally approved an acquisition in the casino, hotel and leisure market, finding no competition or public interest concerns.
Competition law – merger control – casino gaming, leisure, hotel and resorts market – merger cleared unconditionally – no competition or public interest concerns identified.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger, finding no substantial lessening of competition and no merger-related job losses.
Competition — Merger — change from joint to sole control; horizontal overlap in solar module production; modest domestic market share (~15%); future vertical integration via affiliate entry — no foreclosure; public interest — pre-merger voluntary retrenchments not merger-related; unconditional approval.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
Acquiring firm’s move from minority to sole control of a fruit marketer raises no competition or public interest concerns; merger approved.
Competition law – merger approval – acquisition of remaining share capital by existing minority shareholder – no horizontal overlap – no substantial lessening of competition – public interest (employment) not implicated – approved without conditions.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
A restructuring acquisition of an SVR business approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
Merger control – market definition: stolen vehicle recovery, fleet monitoring and telematics; Competitive effects – non-merger-specific allegations of exclusivity; Foreclosure risk from minority shareholdings; Public interest – employment effects.
|
12 September 2011 |
|
The Tribunal approved a shelf-company acquisition of a mushroom producer, finding no substantial lessening of competition or public interest concerns.
Competition — Merger control — Acquisition by a shelf company controlled by financial group — No horizontal/vertical overlap with mushroom production/processing market — No substantial lessening of competition — No public interest/employment concerns.
|
7 September 2011 |
|
Applicant granted limited intervention to address vertical foreclosure, predatory pricing/bundling, prior implementation and remedies in merger review.
* Competition — Merger intervention — Leave to intervene in merger proceedings under section 12A(2) — Limited intervention scope to vertical foreclosure and predatory pricing/bundling theories of harm.
* Competition — Vertical integration — Potential foreclosure via control of coldset printing inputs to newspaper publishing markets.
* Competition — Pricing conduct — Allegations of predatory pricing and bundling as possible anti-competitive effects of a merger.
* Merger procedure — Prior implementation — Consideration of prior implementation limited to economic analysis and counterfactuals.
* Procedure — Rights of intervenor — Access to confidential record subject to undertakings, discovery, summons, evidence, cross-examination, and timetable constraints.
|
7 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent agreement resolving alleged price-fixing by industry tariff-setting, imposing penalty and compliance obligations.
Competition law — Section 4(1)(b)(i) — Price-fixing — Industry association jointly determining SAFEX daily storage tariff — Use of SAFEX tariff in physical market — Consent agreement — Administrative penalty — Compliance programme and cooperation obligations.
|
7 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirmed consent agreement finding respondent’s limited participation in tariff-setting could constitute price-fixing, imposing penalty and compliance duties.
Competition Act s4(1)(b)(i) – horizontal price-fixing via industry association; industry associations and SAFEX tariffs; consent agreement under s58; administrative penalty under s59; cooperation obligations and competition law compliance programme.
|
7 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent agreement resolving alleged cartel price-fixing, imposing penalty and compliance obligations on the respondent.
* Competition law – Section 4(1)(b)(i) – horizontal price-fixing – standardised industry storage tariff – collective determination of prices. * Consent agreement – confirmation under section 58(1)(a)(iii) – settlement of cartel allegations. * Administrative penalty – section 59 – monetary sanction proportionate to turnover. * Remedial obligations – cooperation, testimony, evidence production, and mandatory competition law compliance programme.
|
7 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal declines to dismiss referral: referral sufficiently particular and s67(1) prescription challenge premature.
* Competition law – referral competency – legality and intelligibility of Commission referrals under Rule 15 and pertinent case law (Woodlands, Loungefoam).
* Tribunal procedure – proceedings are sui generis; not strictly equivalent to High Court motion proceedings; remedies for insufficiency include particulars or amendment.
* Prescription – s67(1) creates a factual enquiry as to when prohibited conduct ceased; respondent bears initial factual burden to invoke time‑bar.
|
7 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal struck out defective referral for vagueness and lack of pleaded dominance; lacks power to order re-investigation or damages.
Competition law – complaint referrals – excipiable pleadings; failure to define relevant market or plead dominance – sections 7, 8, Rule 15(2); Tribunal’s remedial limits – section 58(1) (no power to refer back to Commission or award compensatory damages); locus standi to enforce consent orders; interdictory relief moot where conduct ceased.
|
5 September 2011 |
|
Acquisition granting negative control over an FMCG holding company poses no horizontal or vertical competition concerns and is approved unconditionally.
Mergers — horizontal non-overlap — no substantial lessening of competition; Mergers — vertical concerns — non-controlling interests and absence of foreclosure risk; Public interest — no adverse effects identified; Approval — unconditional.
|
5 September 2011 |
|
Crossing the bright-line share threshold without substantive control change did not create competition concerns in the international PGM market.
Competition — Merger approval — Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) market — Relevant product market: PGMs; geographic market: international — Crossing bright-line share threshold without substantive change of de facto control — Low post-merger market shares and presence of significant competitors — No substantial lessening of competition — No material public interest concerns.
|
1 September 2011 |
| August 2011 |
|
|
The applicant’s acquisition of a PGM mining right was approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition internationally.
• Competition law – merger approval – acquisition of mining right for platinum group metals (PGMs) – relevant market international.• Merger assessment – future overlap where no current production – assessed on estimated future market share.• Market power – low prospective market share (circa 15%) and presence of significant competitors – unlikely substantial lessening of competition.• Public interest – no employment or other public interest concerns identified.
|
31 August 2011 |
|
The applicant was granted conditional leave to intervene in merger consideration proceedings with defined participatory and confidentiality rights.
* Competition law – Intervention – Applicant granted leave to intervene in Tribunal consideration of Competition Commission's conditional merger approval; * Participation rights – Scope defined under section 12A(3)(a) and (d) (evidence, cross‑examination, discovery, interlocutory participation); * Confidentiality – access to confidential record conditional on confidentiality undertakings; * Procedure – timetable for discovery, notice to raise section 12A(3)(c) issues, and compliance with pre-hearing directions.
|
30 August 2011 |
|
Tribunal compels respondent to produce specified documents unredacted by a set deadline in a discovery dispute.
* Competition law – discovery – Tribunal power to compel further and better discovery and to set compliance deadlines; confidentiality and redactions.
|
24 August 2011 |
|
The Tribunal granted applicants leave to intervene in a merger review over public‑interest concerns about seed access, OPVs, and barriers to entry.
Competition law – merger review – intervention by third parties under s53(1)(c)(v) – public interest considerations including seed pricing, availability of open-pollinated varieties, effects on smallholder and small-scale commercial black farmers, barriers to entry, and germplasm/public-good concerns – procedural directions and rights of interveners (evidence, cross-examination, access to confidential records).
|
19 August 2011 |
|
Tribunal provisionally suspended a merger divestiture condition pending review under section 16(2) of the Competition Act.
Competition law – merger approval – divestiture condition – provisional suspension of divestiture pending section 16(2) review; interim relief; entitlement to apply for extension of divestiture period.
|
19 August 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms settlement: respondent admitted facilitating price-fixing, ordered to pay R500,000 and implement compliance measures.
* Competition law – horizontal conduct – trade association facilitating price-related coordination – alleged contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) (price-fixing). * Settlement confirmed under section 58(1)(a)(iii) – admission of conduct, cessation, compliance programme and administrative penalty (section 59). * Remedies – prohibition on further publication of BPAF, mandatory compliance training, and R500,000 administrative penalty.
|
17 August 2011 |
|
Reported
The respondent admitted price-fixing of grain storage tariffs and the Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement imposing a penalty.
Competition law – Cartel/price-fixing – section 4(1)(b)(i) – industry association conduct – consent agreement under section 58 – administrative penalty – cooperation and compliance programme.
|
16 August 2011 |
|
Reported
The respondent admitted limited participation in price-fixing and agreed a penalty and compliance obligations, which the Tribunal confirmed.
Competition law – horizontal price-fixing – industry association’s coordinated recommendation of standardised storage tariffs to exchange – contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i); Consent agreements – confirmation under section 58(1)(a)(iii) and 58(1)(b); Administrative penalty – calculation, payment schedule and transfer to National Revenue Fund; Compliance programmes and cooperation obligations as settlement conditions.
|
16 August 2011 |
|
Tribunal permitted limited discovery in public-interest merger, refusing broad, burdensome requests and upholding pre-hearing time limits.
Competition law – merger review – public interest discovery – macroscopic approach to relevance – balance probative value against burden; requests for broad global employment dispute records and detailed 'locally produced' breakdowns refused as unduly burdensome and of limited utility; limited discovery ordered for documents expressly relied upon in witness statements and high-level procurement strategy documents; pre-hearing scheduling decisions are case-management and not unfair where made after consultation.
|
15 August 2011 |
|
Acquisition conferring de facto control of logistics firm found unlikely to lessen competition and approved unconditionally.
Merger control — acquisition conferring de facto control — no horizontal overlap between financial services acquirer and logistics target — many competitors in logistics submarkets — no substantial lessening of competition — no adverse public interest effects — merger approved without conditions.
|
11 August 2011 |
|
Applicants granted limited intervention in a section 12A merger review to contest horizontal and vertical timber-market effects.
Competition law — merger review under section 12A — intervention by third parties — limited intervention to likely horizontal and vertical effects in sawn timber market; supply of sawlogs/poles in the Eastern, Southern and Western Cape; downstream supply; market definition; remedies — procedural rights of interveners including inspection of confidential material subject to undertakings.
|
5 August 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved merger subject to a two‑year, pay‑tiered moratorium and reporting obligations to protect employment interests.
Competition — merger public interest — employment — whether Commission's employment conditions justified — parties must follow a rational process to estimate retrenchments — countervailing public interest (target firm distress/cost savings) — time‑limited moratorium and pay‑tier protections with reporting obligations.
|
4 August 2011 |
|
Reported
Acquisition of coal assets unlikely to lessen competition; merger approved unconditionally.
Competition law – merger control – thermal coal markets (export, tied domestic, residual domestic) – market shares low – no substantial lessening of competition; vertical/foreclosure assessment – no significant input or customer foreclosure; coordinated effects – no evidence; public interest – BEE/RBCT allocation concerns and third‑party allegations not merger‑specific; Commission advocacy recommended.
|
4 August 2011 |
|
The Tribunal approved the merger, finding no substantial lessening of competition, no vertical foreclosure, and no control conferred.
Merger control – large merger approval – no substantial lessening of competition – distinct submarkets for short-term insurance and consumer finance – no horizontal overlap – vertical foreclosure assessed and rejected (insignificant procurement, non-exclusive import supply, divested upstream manufacturing) – minority post-merger shareholding not control – public interest (employment) no adverse effect – approval without conditions.
|
2 August 2011 |
|
Acquisition approved: merger unlikely to substantially lessen competition; condition imposed to secure alternative employment for certain distribution employees.
* Competition law – merger approval – markets: convenience and supermarket FMCG retail and corresponding franchise opportunity markets. * Horizontal overlap in franchising below de minimis threshold; retail markets competitive and saturated. * Vertical relationship immaterial given negligible turnover. * Public interest – employment losses at target distribution business addressed by employment-finding condition.
|
1 August 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
An applicant-intervenor is not entitled to costs where merging parties lawfully sought conditional approval and later withdrew their application.
* Competition law – costs in merger consideration proceedings – general rule each party bears own costs (s57(1)) and limited exceptions (s57(2)).
* Tribunal procedure – rule 50(3) (notice of withdrawal and consent to pay costs) considered but jurisdictional limitation noted (Omnia precedent).
* Merger control – merging parties entitled to seek consideration and propose conditions to address competition concerns; proposing conditional approval not per se improper even if other non-competition tender conditions exist.
* Intervention – intervenors participate at their own risk; voluntary participation does not automatically attract a costs award against merging parties.
|
25 July 2011 |
|
Reported
Merging parties may propose and withdraw conditions; intervenor who voluntarily participated is not entitled to further costs.
Merger control – costs – section 57(1) and (2) of the Competition Act – Tribunal rules (rule 50(3)) and withdrawal – extent of Tribunal's power to award costs; Mergers – entitlement of merging parties to notify and propose conditions; Intervention – voluntary participation and risk of costs.
|
25 July 2011 |
|
Merger approved: no substantial lessening of competition or public interest harm found.
Competition law – merger control – horizontal overlaps (diesel reciprocating engines, gas reciprocating engines, gensets) – estimated post‑merger shares below 15% – multiple competitors – vertical relationships present but no foreclosure concerns – no adverse public interest impact (employment) – unconditional approval.
|
21 July 2011 |
|
Tribunal grants Commission an extension, sets service and representation deadlines, and fixes the merger hearing date.
* Competition Act s14A(3) – Extension of time for Commission recommendation – Procedural timelines and service of non-confidential recommendation on trade union – Right of trade union to make oral representations subject to filing/serving brief by deadline – Hearing date fixed.
|
20 July 2011 |
|
Tribunal orders further discovery and reconsideration of redactions, sets timetable and procedure for affidavit-supported application and hearing.
Competition law – discovery – order to compel further and better discovery – redacted material – Tribunal’s power to require reconsideration and production – procedural timetable for affidavit-supported application and hearing.
|
15 July 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms and adopts the Competition Commission's and respondent’s agreed order (annexed).
Competition law – confirmation of consent order – Tribunal confirms and adopts parties' agreed order (annexed "A") – redactions applied.
|
14 July 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirmed the consent order proposed by the Competition Commission and the respondent.
Competition law – confirmation of consent/settlement order – Tribunal confirms order as agreed between Competition Commission and respondent; redactions applied.
|
14 July 2011 |
|
|
14 July 2011 |
