CC v Automatic Sprinkler Inspection Bureau (Pty) Ltd and 17 Others: Tribunal confirms nine settlements

25th May 2022

CC v Automatic Sprinkler Inspection Bureau (Pty) Ltd and 17 Others: Tribunal confirms nine settlements

Photo by: Supplied by Competition Tribunal

Nine installers of automatic fire sprinklers, implicated in a cartel case currently being heard before the Competition Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), have concluded separate settlement agreements after being afforded an opportunity by the Tribunal to settle the matter with the Competition Commission (“the Commission”) which is prosecuting the case.
 
The settlement agreements have been confirmed as orders by the Tribunal. This effectively means that these firms will no longer be prosecuted as the agreements constitute full and final settlement of all proceedings between the firms and the Commission.
 
In September 2021, Jasco Security and Fire Solutions (Pty) Ltd (“Jasco”) also settled with the Commission. Although Jasco agreed to pay a R300 000 administrative penalty, it did not admit to having contravened the Competition Act.
 
This brings to 10 the total number of firms that have settled in this matter. In addition, the Commission earlier withdrew its case against one of the accused firms. This leaves a total of seven firms that are being prosecuted in the cartel case. These firms opted not to settle with the Commission and are contesting the matter before the Tribunal.
 
Penalties
 
In terms of the nine settlement agreements, the firms have not admitted that they contravened section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act i.e. dividing markets, of which they were accused by the Commission. However, they have agreed to pay separate administrative penalties, collectively totalling more than R2 million as depicted attached.

 

Future conduct 

Background
 
In July 2017, the Commission launched an investigation into ASIB and all sprinkler installers registered with it and found, among others, that:

on becoming a listed installer of ASIB, each of the listed installers agreed to adhere to ASIB rules which dictated that inspection services would be performed by ASIB only while the listed installers would provide only installation services; and

the ASIB rules enabled listed installers to divide the market by allocating territories in that a listed installer registered in a particular area would be limited to render its service in its registered area.

The Commission concluded that this conduct between ASIB and listed installers amounts to market division by allocation of specific types of services and territories in contravention of section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and subsequently referred the case to the Tribunal for prosecution. 

 

Administrative penalties, collectively totalling more than R2 million as depicted Attached

 

Issued by Gillian de Gouveia, Communications Officer on behalf of the Competition Tribunal of South Africa