She points out that Premier Foods was the leniency applicant in respect of the bread cartel matter. Due to the leniency awarded to it, it was not prosecuted with the other members of the cartel and was not party to the referral by the Competition Commission. She adds that section 65(6) of the Act sets out the basis on which a person - who suffered loss or damage as a result of collusive conduct - may institute a civil claim for damages. Such a person must obtain a certificate from the chairperson of the Tribunal or the Judge President of the Competition Appeal Court, certifying that the conduct constituting the basis for the action has been found to be a prohibited practice in terms of the Act. Engelbrecht says the claimants in the class action consequently applied for the relevant certificate. The issuing of the certificate was, however, opposed by Premier Foods. The High Court found that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue a section 65 certificate in respect of Premier Foods' involvement in the bread cartel, irrespective of whether it was cited as a party in the referral or not. Says Engelbrecht: 'This decision will not only impact on possible civil liability for leniency applicants but will mean that parties implicated in collusive conduct and in respect of which the Tribunal makes a finding, even if such party was not a party to the referral to the Tribunal, may face claims for civil damages. It is, however, likely that this position would be challenged based on the fact that such a party would not have appeared before the Tribunal and its right to be heard would have been infringed.' Full analysis on the Legalbrief Today site Premier Foods (Pty) Ltd v Manoim NO and Others (38235/2012)