A critical examination of civil enforcement of competition law under section 65(6) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998: a comparative study
- Authors: Pepeteni, Hlengiwe C
- Date: 2022-05
- Subjects: Antitrust law , Law enforcement
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/28455 , vital:74335
- Description: Since the enactment of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 enforcement of competition law has steadily been on the rise particularly informed by public enforcement. Recently, some judgments have been delivered by the enforcement institutions established by the Act. The latter judgments have landed themselves before civil courts lodged by private individuals. In almost all the cases are individuals who suffered harm due to a prohibited practice committed by firms in breach of section 8 of the Act regulating abuse of dominance. The challenge/difficulty that courts are facing so far is that the Act makes provision for compensation only where firms are found to have breached the Act through the public enforcement process. As regards private enforcement, the Act is not clear. The latter is a challenge when private individuals wish to be compensated. The rules of interpretation are not clear on what route must be followed by individual victims of a breach of abuse of dominance by firms. Section 65 of the Competition Act provides that the civil courts may adjudicate on private civil claims of competition law if and when the competition authorities have ruled that the firm in question has committed prohibited conduct in terms of the Competition. Therefore, the thorny question is whether section 65(6) of the Competition Act refers to or can be interpreted to refer to a common law delictual or statutory claim. The understanding of how the section must be interpreted is important because the understanding of this will make it certain what consequences flow from the section. Currently, few cases have already been decided on the subject, however, the cases have given conflicting interpretations of the section, the study therefore, seeks to investigate whether section 65(6) gives rise to a statutory or a common law delictual claim. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Laws, 2022
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022-05
- Authors: Pepeteni, Hlengiwe C
- Date: 2022-05
- Subjects: Antitrust law , Law enforcement
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/28455 , vital:74335
- Description: Since the enactment of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 enforcement of competition law has steadily been on the rise particularly informed by public enforcement. Recently, some judgments have been delivered by the enforcement institutions established by the Act. The latter judgments have landed themselves before civil courts lodged by private individuals. In almost all the cases are individuals who suffered harm due to a prohibited practice committed by firms in breach of section 8 of the Act regulating abuse of dominance. The challenge/difficulty that courts are facing so far is that the Act makes provision for compensation only where firms are found to have breached the Act through the public enforcement process. As regards private enforcement, the Act is not clear. The latter is a challenge when private individuals wish to be compensated. The rules of interpretation are not clear on what route must be followed by individual victims of a breach of abuse of dominance by firms. Section 65 of the Competition Act provides that the civil courts may adjudicate on private civil claims of competition law if and when the competition authorities have ruled that the firm in question has committed prohibited conduct in terms of the Competition. Therefore, the thorny question is whether section 65(6) of the Competition Act refers to or can be interpreted to refer to a common law delictual or statutory claim. The understanding of how the section must be interpreted is important because the understanding of this will make it certain what consequences flow from the section. Currently, few cases have already been decided on the subject, however, the cases have given conflicting interpretations of the section, the study therefore, seeks to investigate whether section 65(6) gives rise to a statutory or a common law delictual claim. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Laws, 2022
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022-05
Examination of the interpretation of public interest considerations: an evaluation of mergers under the Competition Act 1998
- Ndiki, Namhla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3686-4287
- Authors: Ndiki, Namhla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3686-4287
- Date: 2022-05
- Subjects: Antitrust law , Public interest law
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/28497 , vital:74343
- Description: The assessment of mergers is firstly whether they will lessen or prevent competition, secondly whether there are any technological or pro-competitive gains justifying an otherwise anticompetitive merger, and lastly whether they are justified on grounds of public interests. Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act states that when determining whether a merger can or cannot be justified on public interest grounds the Competition Commission or the Competition Tribunal must consider several factors. These include: the effect that the merger will have on a particular industrial sector or region, employment, the ability of small businesses or firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons to enter into, compete, expand in the market, and the ability of national industries to compete in international markets as well as the promotion of a greater spread of ownership, in particular, to increase the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons and workers in firms in the market. Therefore, this study seeks to determine whether courts have brought the public interests principles to bear when interpreting agreements parties enter into to facilitate mergers. To this study, the latter question is important because it seeks to determine whether public interests are given effect to when considering the historical imbalance/context from which South African competition law comes. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Law, 2022
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022-05
- Authors: Ndiki, Namhla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3686-4287
- Date: 2022-05
- Subjects: Antitrust law , Public interest law
- Language: English
- Type: Master's theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/28497 , vital:74343
- Description: The assessment of mergers is firstly whether they will lessen or prevent competition, secondly whether there are any technological or pro-competitive gains justifying an otherwise anticompetitive merger, and lastly whether they are justified on grounds of public interests. Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act states that when determining whether a merger can or cannot be justified on public interest grounds the Competition Commission or the Competition Tribunal must consider several factors. These include: the effect that the merger will have on a particular industrial sector or region, employment, the ability of small businesses or firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons to enter into, compete, expand in the market, and the ability of national industries to compete in international markets as well as the promotion of a greater spread of ownership, in particular, to increase the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons and workers in firms in the market. Therefore, this study seeks to determine whether courts have brought the public interests principles to bear when interpreting agreements parties enter into to facilitate mergers. To this study, the latter question is important because it seeks to determine whether public interests are given effect to when considering the historical imbalance/context from which South African competition law comes. , Thesis (LLM) -- Faculty of Law, 2022
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022-05
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »