Consumer commission suffers another setback
THE Consumer Commission suffered a blow in the North Gauteng High Court yesterday when its urgent application for a review of the Consumer Tribunal’s ruling in the Auction Alliance matter was set aside with three cost orders, including two punitive cost orders.
The commission has been at loggerheads with the tribunal after some of its compliance notices were set aside by the tribunal, mainly on procedural grounds. The animosity between the two state institutions was clear from court papers. The commission said in its replying affidavit that the process before the tribunal (in the Auction Alliance matter) was so grossly irregular “that comparing its decisions (the tribunal’s) with that of a kangaroo court would be an injustice to a kangaroo court”.
In a report before the court, the tribunal said the commission’s failure to understand and abide by the provisions of the Consumer Protec- tion Act was not assisting consumers and would ultimately lead to the discrediting of the act.
The Auction Alliance matter arose last year when businesswoman Wendy Appelbaum complained to the commission that the auctioneers had used a “ghost” bidder to force up the bidding when she bought the Quoin Rock estate for R50m.
The commission conducted an investigation and issued a compliance notice against Auction Alliance, the liquidators and the Institute of Auctioneers. Auction Alliance applied to the tribunal asking it to set the compliance notice aside because of procedural irregularities.
The setting aside of the tribunal’s notice was the subject of yesterday’s urgent application.
The commission accused the tribunal of making a ruling in the Auction Alliance matter even before the matter was heard, saying it also reported its reasons to the Department of Trade and Industry before the matter was heard. The commission argued that its application was urgent, since the sale could not go ahead, pending the outcome of the proceedings before the high court.
The liquidators accused the commission of being disingenuous by not alerting the court to the fact that the commission and the liquidators had an agreement that they were free to continue with the sale of the property and that Ms Appelbaum would be treated as any other bidder.
Judge Johan Louw said he was concerned that the commission did not disclose the agreement to the court. It was “abundantly clear” that the property could be sold and that nothing was stopping the liquidators from doing so and appointing whichever auctioneer they wanted, including Auction Alliance.
Despite this, the commission had pressed ahead with its urgent application to the court. “I find that conduct by the applicant (the commission) disingenuous.”
He also found the procedure followed by the commission, launching an application for a review of the tribunal’s decision without a record of the proceedings, irregular.