The American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (Ansac) has petitioned South Africa“s supreme court of appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal against an earlier judgment by the competition appeal court (CAC).
T…
The American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (Ansac) has petitioned South Africa“s supreme court of appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal against an earlier judgment by the competition appeal court (CAC). The CAC previously denied Ansac leave to appeal against its earlier judgment against the ash company. Ansac“s petition will mean that the oldest case being handled by the competition authorities will not be heard by the competition tribunal until 2008, 10 years after the case was originally brought. On 13 July 2007, lawyers for Ansac confirmed that they had filed the petition with the SCA. They believed the court would reach a different view to that of the CAC. They dismissed criticism that they were using delaying tactics, saying the subject of the appeal was extremely important and needed to be pursued vigorously. The lawyers would not comment on speculation that if the SCA denied Ansac“s petition, the firm would approach the constitutional court for relief. Ansac“s latest decision means it is likely to be several more months at least before a public hearing of the merits of the case takes place. The case was originally brought to the competition commission in 1999 by Botswana Ash (Botash), which also makes soda ash. Botash claimed that Ansac, a group of four large US soda ash companies, was a cartel and so in contravention of the Competition Act. In United States law, companies are allowed to form associations for the purpose of exporting, but cannot operate on US territory. After an investigation, the commission found that Ansac broke section four of the Competition Act, which deals with prohibited practices such as horizontal associations. The commission referred the matter to the tribunal for adjudication. Botash has been allowed to participate in the tribunal proceedings as an intervener. In the eight years since the commission referred the matter, the tribunal has not once had the opportunity to hear a discussion on the merits of the case. Instead, Ansac“s lawyers have argued points such as whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over a US association and whether the commission erred in its interpretation of the act. These arguments were taken through the CAC, the SCA and the constitutional court. In August 2006 the case came back to the tribunal for a discussion of its merits. However, at that stage Ansac“s lawyers learned that a lawyer who had worked for the commission and had access to privileged information was now employed by lawyers Webber Wentzel Bowen (WWB), who represent Botash. Ansac applied to the tribunal for the removal of Botash as an intervener or to have WWB disqualified from acting for Botash. The application was turned down. The judgment in the week ending 14 July 2007 by the CAC was a confirmation of its earlier decision to uphold the tribunal“s denial.