Essay on Case Analysis

1629 Words Sep 30th, 2015 7 Pages
Competition Law, LAWS4045 | American Natural Soda Ash Corporation/ Botswana Ash (Pty) Ltd. Case no: 12/CAC/Dec01) (Competition Appeal Court). | TEAM 10: 606112 | Graham ¸ Nomandisa | 686655 | Gumede ¸ Chazani | 531224 | Gysi ¸ Darren | 604577 | Hamid ¸ Saleha | 388120 | Heidt ¸ Gareth | | |


American Natural Soda Ash Corporation/ Botswana Ash (Pty) Ltd. Case no: 12/CAC/Dec01. This was decided in the Competition Appeal Court of South Africa (‘CAC’) in 2003. The panel members were Jali JA, and Malan AJA, who all concurred with the written judgement of Davis JP.

The parties are: American Natural Soda Ash Corporation and CHC Global (Pty) Ltd (‘Ansac’) as the first and second appellant respectively, and,
…show more content…
On appeal, the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) confirmed the decision of the CT. Ansac subsequently sought to appeal the CAC’s judgement to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). However, the SCA dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants did not ask the CAC for leave to appeal. The applicants, in this case, now seek leave to appeal from the CAC.
Relevant sections of the Act and the Theory of Harm issues

The applicants contend that the general principle is that, ‘leave is granted if there are reasonable prospects of success’. The question before this court, however, is whether or not there is a stricter test to be applied and whether there should be special circumstances to warrant further appeal to the SCA.
There were three issues that the court deemed it had to decide. The first was whether or not there could be an alternative interpretation of the word ‘effect’, and whether there needed to be a ‘theory of harm’. Section 3 states that the Act applies ‘to all economic activity within, or having an effect, in the Republic…’. In this regard, the applicants contended that the effect had to have adverse consequences, whereas the respondents argued that this meant any effect - negative or not.
The second issue that had to be decided was whether or not section 4(1)(b) would allow for an efficiency defence, whether the

Related Documents