Competition Amendment Bill: voting

This premium content has been made freely available

Trade and Industry

18 April 2000
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

19 April 2000

Documents handed out:
Competition Amendment Bill [10B-20]
Amendments agreed to in the NCOP [handwritten copy]

The Competition Board explained the effect of the amendments proposed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) to members. There was no debate over the proposed amendments and they were unanimously agreed upon.

Ms Raju from the Competition Board explained that only Section 37 of the Bill had been amended by the NCOP. The proposed amendment did not change the substance of the Bill being mainly grammatical amendments.

Amendment 1

Clause 2 (amending Section 37(1): substitute "or" for the "and". Ms Raju explained that the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) could consider an appeal from a decision by the Competition Tribunal or review a decision of the Competition Tribunal. In a review the party is appealing against the procedure being used while an appeal is always against the merits of a matter. The CAC cannot, however, deal with a case as both an appeal and a review. A case might arise where elements of both a review and an appeal are present. In that situation the CAC will take it as a review or an appeal. Rules being drafted for the CAC will make this clear.

Amendment 2
Clause 2 (amending S37 (1): delete paragraph (b) and substitute: "consider an appeal arising from the Competition Tribunal in respect of-
any of its final decisions other than a consent order made in terms of Section 63; or
any of its interim or interlocutory decisions that may, in terms of this Act, be taken on appeal."

Ms Raju explained that if a matter is taken on appeal it is from a final decision. But the Competition Tribunal was also empowered to make interlocutory decisions and if a party wishes to appeal that decision to the CAC it may. It will hear either one but not both. The amendment to paragraph (b) only has the effect of tidying up the provision.

The Chairperson, Dr Davies commented that paragraph (b), in particular the words "arising from", would make it clear that the Competition Tribunal was not the only body with locus standi.

Dr Davies concluded that there was no opposition to the proposed amendments.

The formal motion of desirability was read out and all members present agreed to the amendments.



No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Share this page: