Automated Summary
Key Facts
Streamlight FX (Pty) Ltd and Iron Ice (Pty) Ltd (applicants) sought interim relief from the Competition Tribunal to suspend a High Court interdict against them. The interdict, issued in 2019, prohibited the applicants from dealing with 160 protected customers and 27 protected suppliers of Genesis One Lighting (Pty) Ltd (respondent). The applicants argued the restraint violated sections 4(1)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Competition Act by constituting a prohibited market division. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case. The High Court's order was deemed binding under common law principles, and the applicants' compliance was not a voluntary 'concerted practice' but a result of judicial coercion. The Tribunal emphasized that the Competition Act does not override valid judicial orders.
Issues
- The Tribunal considered if the applicants met the criteria for interim relief under section 49C of the Competition Act. It found that they failed to establish a prima facie right, as the High Court's order was res judicata on unlawful competition. Additionally, the Tribunal questioned its jurisdiction to override a valid judicial order, leading to the dismissal of the application.
- The applicants argued that the High Court's interdict, which restricts their dealings with certain customers and suppliers, amounts to a prohibited concerted practice under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act, which deals with market division. The Tribunal concluded that compliance with a court order does not constitute a voluntary concerted practice and thus dismissed the application.
Holdings
The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Remedies
- The application for interim relief is dismissed.
- Each party must bear its own costs.
Legal Principles
The Competition Tribunal dismissed the interim relief application on the basis that the High Court's order was res judicata, meaning the applicants could not re-litigate the issue of unlawful competition which had already been finally adjudicated. The Tribunal emphasized that the Act does not grant authority to override valid judicial orders.
Precedent Name
- Sekunjalo case
- Schultz v Butt
Cited Statute
- Competition Act, 89 of 1998 (as amended)
- Constitution of South Africa
- Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Judge Name
- G Budlender
- L Mncube
- T Vilakazi
Passage Text
- The applicants have in any event failed to make out a prima facie case under the Act.
- Where a person undertakes an action (or refrains from an action) as a result of coercion, which is created by an order of court which it opposed, that is not concerted conduct.
- It is res judicata that the applicants had been engaging in unlawful competition with the respondent.