Significant competition law cases in which Thulamela members have appeared, include the following:

• Acting for Hosken Consolidated Investments and Tsogo Sun Holdings Limited in the Constitutional Court where it was held that Hosken did not need to notify the 2017 acquisition of Tsogo.  The Court found that although the Competition Commission may investigate assurances made when the merger was notified, the merger was already approved in 2014 and merger approval is a “once-off” affair. 

• Acting for Media 24 (Pty) Limited in the Constitutional Court which dismissed the Commission’s appeal against the Competition Appeal Court’s judgement which held that Media 24 was not guilty of abuse of dominance by predatory pricing case.  According to the Competition Appeal Court, the test to determine whether specific conduct amounts to an exclusionary act is an objective test.  There is no need to examine intent in proving predatory pricing.

• Acting for the Competition Commission in the Constitutional Court against Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and 2 Others where it was held that the Competition Tribunal does not have the powers to award costs against the Commission and that the Competition Appeal Court has the discretion to award costs against the Commission.  The principle to be followed in exercising this discretion, is that the Commission must not be inhibited in its bona fide fulfilment of its mandate by the threat of an adverse costs award.

• Acting for the Competition Commission in the Constitutional Court matter against Senwes.  The Constitutional Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision in finding that Senwes had abused its dominance.  This judgment confirms the Tribunal’s freedom to adopt either a formal or informal form of hearing, whichever it considers proper.  The Tribunal is not confined to matters raised by the Commission in its referral as this would undermine its inquisitorial powers.

• Acting for Primedia (Pty) Ltd t/a Ster Kinekor Theatres in the Competition Appeal Court. In dismissing the Competition Commission’s appeal, the Competition Appeal Court found that a settlement agreement between Ster Kinekor and Nu Metro which was the basis of the complaint referral, had not been implemented. 

• Acting for some of the respondent banks in the Competition Commission’s referral against them for alleged cartel conduct.

• Acting for the appellants, Dawn Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd and DPI Plastics (Pty) Ltd, in the Competition Appeal Court where the appeal was upheld and the Commission’s complaint was dismissed.  It was held the protection of confidential information and know-how is a proprietary interest worthy of protection by a restraint of trade. The appellant were able to show that the non-compete clause which was the basis of the Commission’s referral was reasonably required in order to protect a legitimate interest. 

• Acting for the appellant, Group Five Ltd, in the Competition Appeal Court where the appeal was upheld and the Competition Commission was ordered to afford Group Five access to portions of the record that were not restricted.

• Acting for the appellant, Sasol Chemical Industries, in the Competition Appeal Court, where the appeal was upheld and the complaint against Sasol for excessive pricing was dismissed.

• Acting for the appellants, Caxton and CTP publishers and Printers, where the appeal was upheld and the Media 24’s acquisition of Novus was held to be a notifiable merger.