BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Murray/O'Connell [1993] IECA 30 (9th September, 1993)
Competition
Authority Decision of 9 September, 1993 relating to a proceeding under Section
4 of the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No. CA/27/93. J. Murray/L. and J. O'Connell.
Decision
No. 30
Introduction
1. Notification
was made by James Murray, Main Street, Baltinglass, Co Wicklow on 2 July 1993
with a request for a certificate under
Section 4(4) of the
Competition Act,
1991 or, in the event of a refusal by the Competition Authority to issue a
certificate, a licence under
Section 4(2), in respect of a tenancy agreement
and proposed lease with Len and John O'Connell.
The
Facts
(a) The
subject of the notification.
2. The
notification concerns the lease of a premises at Main Street, Baltinglass, Co.
Wicklow between James Murray, landlord, and Len O'Connell and John O'Connell,
tenants. The premises consists of a lock-up shop, with a residence overhead.
(b) The
parties involved.
3. James
Murray owns the premises at Main Street, Baltinglass, and he also operates a
grocery shop in the town. Len and John O'Connell are in the business of
providing services as insurance brokers, investment brokers and financial
advisors.
(c) The
notified arrangements.
4. The
notified agreement for the letting of a business premises was made on 17 June
1993 for a period of 6 months from 18 June 1993. This was accompanies by a
draft lease in respect of the same premises for 35 years from 14 June 1993,
provided that planning permission was received for the development. The
agreement for letting contains the following restricted user clause:
'2. The
tenant agrees with the landlord as follows:-
(g) Not
to use or occupy the premises or permit the same to be used or occupied
otherwise than for the purpose of the Tenant's business as Insurance Brokers,
Investment Brokers and Financial Advisors.....'
Under
the draft lease, the tenant covenants with the landlord:
'3.16 Not
to use or permit the demised premises or any part thereof to be used for any
purpose other than:-
3.16.1 Insurance
Broker, Investment Broker and Financial Advisors without the landlord's consent
in writing to the change of use of the premises, which said consent shall not
be unreasonably withheld'.
In
addition, there are a number of other standard restrictive conenants and
obligations in the agreement and lease.
Assessment
- The Applicability of Section 4(1).
5. The
Authority considers that James Murray is an undertaking within the meaning of
Section3 of the
Competition Act, by virtue of providing suitable accommodation
in which persons can carry on a business in return for rental payments, and
because he operates a grocery shop. Len and John O'Connell provide certain
services for gain, and they also are undertakings. The notified agreement for
letting and the draft lease are agreements between undertakings. The
agreements have effect within a part of the State.
6. The
Authority considers that the notified agreements, and their restricted user
clauses and the other standard restrictive clauses and obligations, do not have
the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in
trade in services in the State or in any part of the State. The restricted
user clause prevents the premises being used by the tenants for any purpose
other than that specified. The object of the restriction is for good estate
management. The tenants, should they wish to engage in any other line of
business, could do so in many other premises, both in the vicinity and
throughout the State, and so the effect of the agreements is not
anti-competitive. Similarly, the agreements do not prevent any other person
engaging in any form of business activity in any part of the State. In
addition, ther can be a change of user for the premises, for which the
landlord's consent mey not be unreasonably withheld. The Authority therefore
considers that the notified agreements between James Murray and Len and John
O'Connell do not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
The
Certificate
7. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies thatin its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the agreements between James Murray and Len and John
O'Connell in relation to the tenancy agreement and draft lease of the premises
at Main Street, Baltinglass, Co Wicklow, (notification no. CA/27/93), notified
on 2 July 1993 under
Section 7, do not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
the Competition Authority.
Patrick
M Lyons
Chairman
9
September, 1993.
© 1993 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1993/30.html