‘COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (Case No: CRIOBApr10 In the matter between ‘THE COMPETITION COMMISSION Applicant And COMPUTICKET (PTY) LTD Respondent Panel Norman Manoim (Presiding Member) Yasmin Carrim (Tribunal Member) ‘Andreas Wessels (Tribunal Member) Heard on 48,9-11, 13, 16, 17, 90, and 31 October 2017; 22 and 23 February 2018 Order issued on 21 Janwary 2019 Reasons issued on 224 January 2019 Decision and order Introduction 1. In this case the Competition Tribunal (Tribunat’) was asked to determine ‘whether a dominant firm in the market for the provision of outsourced ticket istribution services to inventory providers for entertainment events (inter alia), abused its dominance by securing exclusive agreements with its clerts. 2. The case against the respondent, Computicket (Pty) Ltd ("Computicket’), an outsourced ticket distribution service provider, was referred to the Tribunal ‘April 2010, by the Competition Commission (‘Commission’), folowing @ Ssories of complaints that were lodged by Computicket's compettors. For purposes of these reasons we shall refer to outsourced ticket distibution 1ssorvice providers such as Computicket or its competitors as “outsourced ticket distributors” Relief sought 3, Itis common cause that the exclusive contracts that the Commission seeks. to impugn were stil in existence at the time the complaint was referred on ‘30 April 2010. It was for this reason no doubt that the Commission, as part Of its relief, sought orders from the Tribunal that were consistent with this ‘approach. Thus the relief sought in relation fo the exclusive provisions included the folowing: 3.1.A declaratory order that the provisions contravene the Act for the: Period from 1999 to date of the order, 8.2, An order that the exclusivity agreements are void and of no force: or effect: 3.3. An order interdicting Computicket from entering into any furthor exclusive contracts with inventory provders in the relevant market, However the Commission at the commencement ofthis heating abandoned the prayers for an interdict and the voiding of the exclusivity terms, It has. also confined its prayer fora declaratory orderto the perlod September 1999 to December 2012, ‘Thus, the relief now sought by the Commission is confined to a declaratory ‘order and the imposition of an administrative penalty ‘Scope of the hearing 6. During the evidence ofthe fist factual witnass, Computicket questioned the case itwas meant to meet after an attempt by the Commission's counsel to widen ts case by adducing testimony that Computicie's conduct was exclusionary, even in circumstances where the contrads did not contain exclusivity clauses,‘Compuicket's egal team argued that the Commission's case was confined to that made out in the pleadings viz. only the contracts containing exclusivity provisions. The Commission contended that its case wasnot confined to the ccontrac's but also how the behaviour of Computicket in the market place reinforced the exclusionary nature ofthe contracts. The Tribunal was asked by Computicket to rule on the matter. We ruled in Computicke’s favour and the case was confined to the issue of whether the exclusivity clauses inthe contracts had an exclusionary effect.* (Our reason for doing so was simple. The contracts had been the basis of he Commission's case from the beginning unti this moment uring the hearing, and it would have been unfair at that late stage for Corputicket to have to meet an adcitional allegation of exclusion for which it had not come Prepared, Procedural background ®. 10, 1" ‘The ofgins of this case date back to February 2008, when a rival of Compuicket known as Strictly Tickets CC (‘Strictly Tike's" laid a complaint with the Commission. This complaint was followed by complaints from four other fims. The complainants were Soundalite CC, KZN Entertainment New and Reviews CC, L Square Technologies, and Ezimidialo Technologies: coz ‘The Cemmission decided to consolidate these complants as they raised ‘overtapping issues and this led to the present complaint referral which was. fled wit the Tribunal on 30 April 2010. ‘The hearing in this matter commenced more than seven years later on 4. (October 2017. The long delay can be attributed to a lengthy and itigious. history between the parties over discovery of documents followed by an Unsuccessful administrative law challenge to the Commissioner's decision +See transcrip page 436-496 for err. "These complains wer lodged at various times between 3 March 2008 and 7 September 2009. Sé {Complaint nel parcraphs to 14 roord pages 1, 3