Publications
Partners
Johannesburg - The Competition Appeal Court has upheld an appeal by vehicle tracking group Altech Netstar against the Competition Tribunal's finding that it had committed a prohibited practice.
In March 2010 the tribunal found Altech Netstar, along with three other respondents, guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.
Altech Netstar appealed the decision, and on Wednesday the Competition Appeal Court set aside the Competition Tribunal's finding. The finding was dismissed with costs.
The alleged practice related to the period between 1999 and 2003 when Altech Netstar accepted the Vehicle Security Association's (Vesa's) invitation to become a member of a Vesa sub-committee, which suggested minimum standards for vehicle tracking systems by insurance companies.
"We have been vindicated. Judge Wallis AJA clearly outlined in his judgment that we did not contravene the Competition Act or engage in any behaviour to lessen competition in the vehicle tracking industry," said Altech CEO Craig Venter.
"The Appeal Court judgment was critical of the Competition Tribunal, in that the tribunal had made a finding of anti-competitive behaviour and then sought to formulate reasons for that finding when none existed," he said.
In March 2010 the tribunal found Altech Netstar, along with three other respondents, guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.
Altech Netstar appealed the decision, and on Wednesday the Competition Appeal Court set aside the Competition Tribunal's finding. The finding was dismissed with costs.
The alleged practice related to the period between 1999 and 2003 when Altech Netstar accepted the Vehicle Security Association's (Vesa's) invitation to become a member of a Vesa sub-committee, which suggested minimum standards for vehicle tracking systems by insurance companies.
"We have been vindicated. Judge Wallis AJA clearly outlined in his judgment that we did not contravene the Competition Act or engage in any behaviour to lessen competition in the vehicle tracking industry," said Altech CEO Craig Venter.
"The Appeal Court judgment was critical of the Competition Tribunal, in that the tribunal had made a finding of anti-competitive behaviour and then sought to formulate reasons for that finding when none existed," he said.
