Contact

Competition Commission raids auto body firms

Back to top

Competition Commission raids auto body firms

4 Jul 2014 1 min read Article

The Competition Commission today raided the offices of three auto body firms as part of its investigation into collusive conduct in the market for auto body repairs.  This is according to Leana Engelbrecht, Senior Associate in the Competition practice at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr.

She explains that the Commission may conduct dawn raids on firms where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited practice is taking place or that information or documentation relevant to an ongoing investigation is at the premises being raided and subject to obtaining (in most instances) a warrant to conduct the search and seizure operations. 

“The Commission confirmed that these dawn raids are being conducted subject to the requisite warrants approving the search and seizure operations being obtained,” she notes. 

Engelbrecht adds, “This dawn raid marks the second dawn raid publicly conducted by the Commission this year, the first being dawn raids on Unilever and Sime Darby Hudson & Knight in respect of the Commission's investigation into the market for the manufacture and supply of edible oils and margarine, which took place in April 2014 and adds to the small yet growing list of the handful of dawn raids conducted by the Commission since its inception.”

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2023 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.

You might also be interested in

27 Feb 2023

by Gillian Lumb and Nadeem Mahomed

Menstrual leave: Advancing gender equality in the workplace

The opening up of the workplace and the inclusion of women in a formal manner in the economy has increased since the early 20 th century. Since then, the path to equal access to professional careers, closing the gender gap in relation to remuneration, and equal opportunities for promotion and leadership positions has been a long one, with gradual progress over time. The need to legally provide maternity leave benefits and legally safeguard employment in the context of pregnancy are some contemporary examples.

Employment Law

2 min read

2 Mar 2023

by Petr Erasmus

Customs And Excise

Tax & Exchange Control

5 min read

16 Mar 2023

by Nicholas Carroll

Killed by its own kindness

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) wields enormous power in its ability to raise assessments and collect tax. However, this power is not without its limits – it exists within the bounds of legislation, most notably the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA). This was recently highlighted in the decision of Lance Dickson Construction CC v Commissioner for SARS JDR 0259 (WCC) ( LDC ), on appeal from the Tax Court, where SARS’ own leniency when levying an understatement penalty proved to be its own undoing.

Tax & Exchange Control

5 min read

17 Nov 2023

by Njeri Wagacha

Njeri Wagacha talks to Wangechi Gichuki and Linda Anene

Every month CDH Kenya Partner, Njeri Wagacha publishes a podcast 'Njeri Talks Law'. This month, Njeri welcomes esteemed guests Wangechi Gichuki, Head of Legal and Secretarial Services, and Linda Anene, Senior Legal Counsel and Acting Company Secretary, from Safaricom.

Corporate & Commercial Law

42:43 Minutes

1 Sep 2023

by Puleng Mothabeng and JJ van der Walt

Remote working in South Africa: The tax and employment law implications

Employment Law

11:10 Minutes

3 Oct 2023

by Belinda Scriba and Katekani Mashamba

Trusts and suretyship: Is consent from a majority of trustees enough for a trust to conclude an agreement?

In the decision of Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys v Abraham Johannes de Witt N O and Others (1270/2021) ZASCA, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to determine whether the court a quo was correct in finding that a resolution taken by the majority of a trust’s trustees was sufficient to authorise the conclusion of a deed of suretyship in favour of a thirdparty. 

Dispute Resolution

6 min read

This website uses cookies to enhance the browsing experience. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.

Accept Decline