|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2011 |
|
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved the acquisition, finding no substantial lessening of competition and no public interest concerns.
Competition — Merger — Mining/coal — No horizontal overlap in South Africa; vertical supply link to downstream joint venture but foreclosure unlikely; presence of alternative suppliers and intention to divest target’s South African anthracite asset — public interest: no retrenchments — merger unconditionally approved.
|
12 July 2011 |
|
The tribunal approved a property consolidation merger, finding negligible competition effects and no public interest concerns.
* Competition Law – Merger approval – Horizontal overlap in rentable retail space – consolidation of contiguous shopping‑centre portions.
* Market delimitation – minor regional shopping centre classification – market definition unnecessary where no realistic competition concern arises.
* Public interest – employment impact – no job losses anticipated.
* Outcome – unconditional approval.
|
11 July 2011 |
|
Acquisition of powdered soft drinks business approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition; no public interest concerns.
* Competition law – merger approval – acquisition of powdered soft drinks manufacturer – potential product market delineation (sports vs soft drinks; powder vs ready-to-drink; premium vs economy) – national geographic market – market share below 10% – unlikely substantial lessening of competition. * Public interest – no job losses; no public interest concerns.
|
8 July 2011 |
|
Acquisition of property investment units approved unconditionally: overlaps minimal, low market shares, no public interest concerns.
Competition law – Merger approval – Property sector – Overlap in office, retail and light industrial markets across multiple geographic nodes – Low post‑merger shares — internal restructuring not changing control – No public interest concerns.
|
7 July 2011 |
|
A shareholder restructuring transferring control in a retail group did not substantially lessen competition or raise public interest concerns.
Competition law – merger notification – shareholder restructuring and change in control – negative control via amended shareholder agreement – no substantive horizontal/vertical overlap – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns.
|
7 July 2011 |
|
Proposed merger approved: fragmented fixed‑voice market and substitutable technologies meant no substantial competition harm.
Competition law – merger control – horizontal and vertical overlaps in fixed‑voice services – market definition: substitutability of LCR, VoIP and traditional voice – fragmented market with low combined market share – no input/customer foreclosure – public interest (jobs) and regulator (ICASA) views – unconditional approval.
|
5 July 2011 |
|
Reported
Merger approved subject to condition barring overlapping directorships to prevent collusive information exchange in the steel merchant market.
* Competition law – merger control – horizontal linkages via minority shareholdings and board representation – risk of information exchange and collusion between large steel merchants. * Remedy – behavioural undertaking preventing simultaneous directorships/board attendance to mitigate collusion risk. * Market definition – national steel merchant market; financial services overlap immaterial. * Public interest – no retrenchment concerns.
|
1 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
Reported
Tribunal conditionally approves applicant's acquisition of respondent, imposing employment, union-recognition and supplier-development conditions.
Competition law – merger control – no substantial lessening of competition found; Public interest under section 12A – employment, prior retrenchments, collective bargaining and domestic procurement; Merger-specificity requirement for public interest intervention; Reinstatement vs preferential rehiring for prior retrenchments; Protection of existing collective agreements and temporary union recognition; Rejection of import quotas as impractical and disproportionate; Acceptance of supplier-development investment (R100m/3 years) as proportionate remedy.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Move from joint to sole control of a shopping centre unlikely to substantially lessen competition; merger approved unconditionally.
* Competition law – Merger control – Horizontal overlap from change from joint to sole control of a shopping centre – No market share accretion; no substantial lessening of competition.
* Market definition – Provision of minor rentable retail space for minor regional shopping centres; Equestria node.
* Public interest – No issues identified.
* Vertical effects – None found.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
Reported
An authority must justify late pleadings amendments; unexplained delay to add s8(c) or revamp s8(a) pleadings warranted dismissal.
Competition law – amendment of pleadings – late amendments – necessity and justification – alternative reliance on s8(c) – excessive pricing under s8(a) – conformity with Mittal test – unexplained delay in long-running dynamic market proceedings – prejudice and redundancy of amendment.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
The applicant’s purchase and leaseback of office and warehouse properties does not substantially lessen competition in local property markets.
Competition law – mergers – acquisition of office and warehouse properties with leaseback – relevant market definition (Grade B office; light industrial/warehouse in Crown Mines/South West Industrial node) – market share overstated by limited dataset – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns (no retrenchments) – unconditional approval.
|
21 June 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirmed a consent order agreed between the applicant (Competition Commission) and the respondent.
Competition law – settlement – consent order – Tribunal confirmation of an agreement between the Competition Commission and a respondent; published judgment contains redactions.
|
15 June 2011 |
|
Reported
|
15 June 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms a consent order jointly proposed by the Competition Commission and the respondent.
* Competition law – Consent order – Tribunal confirmation of an order agreed between the Competition Commission and a respondent; procedural confirmation of settlement.
|
15 June 2011 |
|
Tribunal granted the competition authority partial discovery orders, including transaction-level sales data inspection under confidentiality.
Competition law — merger inquiry — compelled discovery — scope limited to categories necessary for competitive assessment (costs, product development timelines, financials, competitive correspondence, licensing arrangements) — transaction-level data inspection by external counsel/experts subject to confidentiality undertakings — partial grant and partial dismissal of discovery requests.
|
13 June 2011 |
|
Reported
Concurrent jurisdiction exists; stay denied where prospects were uncertain, delay was unjustified, and prejudice to merging parties was likely.
Competition law – jurisdiction – concurrence between Competition Tribunal and High Court where relief impacts Tribunal procedure only incidentally; stay of Tribunal proceedings pending parallel High Court action – test: prospects of success, interests of justice, convenience; conflicts of interest – commercial versus legal conflict and proof of breach of confidence; urgency and prejudice in merger timetable.
|
9 June 2011 |
|
A stay pending a High Court interdict was refused where prospects were uncertain and delay would prejudice the merging parties.
* Competition law – mergers – stay of Tribunal merger proceedings pending High Court interdict – concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Tribunal.
* Conflict of interest – former client objection to firm acting for competitor in merger – commercial (not legal) conflict; novel question under South African law.
* Stay test – Novartis three-part test applied: prospects of success in parallel forum; interests of justice; convenience.
* Procedural fairness and expedition – applicant's lack of urgency and time-sensitivity of merger weigh against stay.
|
9 June 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved the acquisition of the target firm, finding no competition or public-interest concerns.
Competition — Merger control — Acquisition coupled with master franchise agreement — No horizontal overlap in informal eating-out sector — No vertical linkages — No public interest (no job losses) — Merger approved without conditions.
|
8 June 2011 |
|
The acquisition giving the applicant sole control raised no competition or public interest concerns and was approved unconditionally.
Competition — Merger control — Potential product overlap between retail outdoor plastic chairs and heavy‑duty industrial chairs; demand‑side non‑substitutability; no substantial lessening of competition; no public interest/job loss concerns — merger approved unconditionally.
|
8 June 2011 |
|
The applicant’s referral against certain respondents was set aside because the one‑year referral period under section 50(2) was not validly extended.
* Competition law – Prescription – referral lapse – section 50(2) one-year period; requirement for valid extension under section 50(4)(a).
* Points in limine – whether respondents were properly cited in the complaint; whether the referral introduced new contraventions (market allocation) beyond the original complaint; whether a respondent was party to the alleged agreement.
* Remedy – referral set aside for prescription; no order as to costs.
|
7 June 2011 |
|
The Tribunal set aside the Commission's referral as time‑barred because the section 50(2) period was not extended under section 50(4)(a).
Competition law — Prescription — Section 50(2) and extension under section 50(4)(a) — Referral set aside where one‑year period not validly extended — Point in limine.
|
7 June 2011 |
|
Merger approved conditionally to prevent data‑based foreclosure and mandate steering by the national exchange.
Merger law — vertical concerns where an exchange (monopoly supplier of market data and regulator) acquires a managed account platform — risks: information foreclosure, listing power abuse, mandate steering; remedy by behavioural and structural conditions (non‑discriminatory data access, independent audit/confidentiality, corporate separation, listing prohibition, two‑year mandate restriction).
|
3 June 2011 |
|
Reported
The Tribunal confirmed a consent order agreed between the Competition Commission and the respondents, as annexed.
* Competition law – settlement/consent orders – Tribunal confirmation of an order agreed between the Competition Commission and respondents – confirmation of parties' proposed consent order (annexed).
|
2 June 2011 |
| May 2011 |
|
|
Tribunal approved the merger subject to employment protections, union recognition and a R100 million local supplier development programme.
* Competition law – merger approval subject to public interest conditions – employment protections, union recognition and local supplier development fund (R100 million) required as remedial measures.
|
31 May 2011 |
|
Reported
|
26 May 2011 |
|
Absence of merger‑specific customer evidence defeated the Commission’s unilateral effects case; merger approved unconditionally.
* Competition law – merger control – unilateral effects – casino industry – relevance of merger‑specific customer evidence and identification of marginal consumers. * Market definition – casino gaming versus broader leisure market; geographic scope (central Gauteng v local catchments). * Evidence – role and limits of loyalty‑card data, entry effects, and promotional experiments (Free Play). * Remedy – divestiture not warranted absent convincing evidence of likely SLC.
|
23 May 2011 |
|
|
6 May 2011 |
|
Tribunal orders disclosure of financial documents under confidentiality terms, and awards costs to applicant.
Competition Law – Discovery – Obligation to disclose financial information – Confidentiality undertaking required – Costs awarded to applicant.
|
5 May 2011 |
|
Tribunal allowed limited amendments and supplementary affidavits but dismissed changes to excessive-pricing and an alternative s8(c) allegation.
Competition law – Amendment of complaint referral – Leave to amend founding affidavit to define ‘VPN Solutions’ and related services by listing technologies – Leave to file supplementary founding affidavit and amended Notice of Motion (limiting complaint period to end-2004) – Respondent permitted to file supplementary answering affidavit within 20 business days – Application to alter excessive-pricing allegations dismissed – Application to add s8(c) as alternative to s8(a) and s9 dismissed – No order as to costs.
|
4 May 2011 |
|
The Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger, finding fragmented markets and no substantial lessening of competition.
Competition law — merger approval — horizontal overlap in rentable retail and office space — vertical linkage via marketing services — fragmented markets and low market shares — countervailing buyer power — no substantial lessening of competition — unconditional approval.
|
4 May 2011 |
|
Vertical acquisition creating financing link approved; no foreclosure or public‑interest impediments found.
Competition — Merger control — Vertical acquisition in low‑income housing finance and development — Vertical foreclosure assessed and rejected — No significant public interest concerns.
|
3 May 2011 |
| April 2011 |
|
|
The Tribunal approved an insurance-sector restructuring, finding negligible competitive harm and no public interest concerns.
Competition law – merger approval – insurance sector restructuring – short-term and long-term insurance markets – niche insurer characterization – negligible market accretion (<1%) – post-merger market share ~23% – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns.
|
15 April 2011 |
|
|
13 April 2011 |
|
Tribunal confirmed a consent order agreed between the Competition Commission and the respondent.
Competition law – consent order – Tribunal confirmation of settlement agreed between the Competition Commission and respondent; record redacted in compliance with law.
|
13 April 2011 |
|
A pharmaceutical distribution merger was approved as unlikely to harm competition or public interest.
* Competition law – Merger approval – Horizontal and vertical overlap in pharmaceutical distribution;* Market definition – wholesale distribution versus broader distribution market;* Competitive assessment – low combined market share (~11%), low barriers to entry, multiple significant competitors;* Public interest – no adverse employment effects;* Outcome – merger approved without conditions.
|
12 April 2011 |
|
Merger approved: despite high shares in Caucasian shampoo and conditioner segments, entry, brand repositioning and retailer power allay competition concerns.
* Competition law – Merger approval – Hair-care market defined by hair type (ethnic v. Caucasian) and product categories.* Merger assessment – High combined market shares in specific segments do not automatically imply anti-competitive effects where entry is easy and brands can be repositioned.* Competitive constraints – brand repositioning, market dynamism, price sensitivity and retailer countervailing power mitigate unilateral/coordinated concerns.* Public interest – limited retrenchments accepted; no substantial public interest impediment to approval.
|
12 April 2011 |
|
|
11 April 2011 |
|
|
8 April 2011 |
|
A merger of adjacent shopping-centre owners was approved as not substantially lessening competition.
Competition law – merger control – market definition and product differentiation (regional vs lifestyle shopping centres); assessment of unilateral and coordinated effects; joint management structures and potential for coordination; public interest (employment) considerations.
|
7 April 2011 |
|
Tribunal confirms and adopts the consent order agreed between the competition authority and the respondent.
* Competition law – consent order – Tribunal confirmation of an order agreed between the Competition Commission and a respondent – adoption of annexed agreement.
|
6 April 2011 |
| March 2011 |
|
|
The Tribunal unconditionally approved a move from joint to sole control in cross-border logistics, finding no competition or public interest concerns.
Competition law – Merger: move from joint to sole control in cross-border road freight/logistics – relevant market defined as routes to Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi – low combined market shares – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
22 March 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved the unbundling merger, finding no substantial competition harm and only limited public interest impacts.
Competition — Merger — Unbundling of shareholding to satisfy JSE pyramid-listing concerns — Relevant market for PGMs: international — No substantial lessening of competition — Limited retrenchments — Merger approved without conditions.
|
22 March 2011 |
|
The merger was unconditionally approved as low market shares, substitutability and outsourcing mitigate competition and vertical concerns.
Competition law – merger control – horizontal overlap in light industrial, Grade A and Grade B office space – geographic concentration in Bryanston and Fourways – substitutability and customer countervailing power – vertical relationship mitigated by outsourcing – no public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
9 March 2011 |
|
Reported
|
4 March 2011 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger, finding no substantial lessening of competition or public interest concerns.
Competition law — merger control — horizontal overlap in contract publishing and consumer magazines — market shares low; differentiation — vertical relationships — input/customer foreclosure unlikely — no public interest or employment concerns — unconditional approval.
|
2 March 2011 |
|
Reported
Abuse-of-dominance complaint dismissed for failing to define a relevant market or plead an exclusionary act.
Competition law – Abuse of dominance (s8(c)) – complaint must define relevant market and plead dominance and an exclusionary act – dominant firm not per se obliged to use public tender procedures – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to Competition Act, not procurement constitutionality or administrative-law challenges.
|
2 March 2011 |
| February 2011 |
|
|
Reported
The Tribunal confirmed a settlement agreement and its amendment and addendum, giving the parties’ consent order formal approval.
Competition law – Settlement approval – Tribunal confirmation of settlement agreement, amendment and addendum to consent order – Case finalised by consent.
|
28 February 2011 |
|
Acquisition of A‑grade office property posed no competition or public interest concerns and was unconditionally approved.
Merger control – property letting enterprise – no horizontal overlap or vertical relationship – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
22 February 2011 |
|
Reported
Acquisition in national agrochemicals manufacture/distribution approved conditionally, with employment undertakings addressing retrenchment risks.
Competition law – Merger control – Horizontal and vertical overlaps in manufacture and distribution of agrochemicals – Market definition – Non-dominant upstream position – Limited downstream overlap – Foreclosure unlikely – Public interest: retrenchment undertaking accepted.
|
10 February 2011 |
|
Acquisition of two A‑grade Sandton offices did not substantially lessen competition given a low combined market share.
Merger control – property sector – acquisition of A‑grade office assets in Sandton – relevant market: A‑grade office space Sandton and environs – combined market share ~4.48% – no substantial lessening of competition – no significant public interest concerns.
|
10 February 2011 |
