The Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) has ruled that the Competition Commission (Commission) is to furnish further particulars in proceedings pertaining to a complaint referral filed by the Commission against cycling wholesalers and retailers. The complaint was filed against twenty respondents for price fixing; stemming from an agreement allegedly reached at an industry meeting. Three wholesalers were excipients in the exception proceedings.

The Commission alleges that retailers and wholesalers in the cycling industry met in 2008 to discuss, among other things, the setting of margins for bicycles and accessories. Although the twenty respondents have taken varying stances and adopted different responses, the exception proceedings involved three excipients who ultimately sought a dismissal of the Commission's referral.

In summary, the grounds for exception were that the complaint did not clearly set out allegations (sufficient detail) to establish a concerted practice, that no horizontal agreement was pleaded and lastly that an agreement not to compete on prices was not alleged. All parties agreed the first two grounds could be remedied through further particulars provided by the Commission but the excipients contended that the third ground should lead to a dismissal of the matter.

The Tribunal ordered that the Commission is to furnish further particulars in all three instances. In particular, the Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide further particulars as to the alleged conduct, whether it was an agreement or concerted practice, and how the matter implicates retailers and wholesalers differently as currently the Commission has treated retailers and wholesalers as being in a horizontal relationship.

Webber Wentzel acted for Cytek Cycles Distributors CC and the team consisted of Martin Versfeld, Christopher Kok, Sinomtha Mbuqe and Beatrix Hugo.