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]
FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd/Southern Health Board [1994] IECA 358 (12th October, 1994)
COMPETITION
AUTHORITY
Notification
No. CA/311/92E - FBD Developments (Cork) Limited/Southern Health Board.
Decision
No 358
Price £0.40
£0.80
incl. postage
Competition
Authority Decision No. 358 of 12 October 1994 relating to a proceeding under
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No. CA/311/92E - FBD Developments (Cork) Limited/ Southern Health Board.
Decision
No. 358
Introduction
1. Notification
was made by FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd on 30 September 1992 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 leases between FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd and
the Southern Health Board.
The
Facts
(a)
Subject of the notification
2. The
notification concerns the lease of premises at the Cork Farm Centre, Wilton,
Cork between FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd as lessor and the Southern Health
Board as lessee.
(b)
The parties involved
3. FBD
Developments (Cork) Ltd, a subsidiary of FBD Insurances PLC, is the owner and
landlord of the Cork Farm Centre, Wilton, Cork. The Southern Health Board is a
statutory corporate body responsible for the administration of health services
in the counties of Cork and Kerry and is also engaged in the provision of
hospital services through over 30 hospitals within this area. Its accounts for
1990 show that it had a revenue of £163.8m in that year of which
£149m was represented by Government grants and the balance represented by
receipts from hospital and other charges as well as other income.
(c)
The notified arrangements
4. Three
leases were notified. One was made on 28 February 1977 for a term of 25 years
from 1 January 1976, another was made on 23 September 1977 for a similar term
and the other lease was made on 23 December 1982 for a term of 20 years from 1
January 1981. Each notified lease is in similar terms and each contains a
restricted user clause 12 as follows:
"
Not to use the premises for any purpose other than that of offices and for
meetings in connection with the business of the Lessee with ancillary staff
canteen and not to use the said parking spaces for any purpose other than the
parking of private motor vehicles and light commercial vehicles."
In
addition, there are a number of other standard restrictive covenants and
obligations in the leases including a restriction on the lessee from assigning
or sub-letting the premises, without the consent of the lessor, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Assessment
(a)
Section 4(1)
5.
Section
4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991 prohibits and renders void all agreements
between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted
practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or
distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services in the State, or in
any part of the State.
6. The
term "undertaking" is defined in
Section 3(1) of
the Act, as "a person being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service". FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd is engaged in the letting of premises
for gain and is therefore an undertaking. While the main activities of the
Southern Health Board are State funded, the Board is also engaged for gain in
the provision of hospital and other services for which charges are made to the
general public. It is therefore an undertaking engaged for gain in the
provision of a service. The notified leases are agreements between
undertakings. The agreements have effect within the State.
7. The
lease agreements contain standard restrictions and obligations on both the
lessor and lessee which are necessary for the maintenance of the
landlord/tenant relationship in respect of the tenancy. These do not raise
issues under the
Competition Act. The very act of leasing the premises to a
particular tenant prevents competitors of the tenant from using those premises
to compete with the tenant. Clearly this cannot be regarded as preventing,
restricting or distorting competition since it would imply that the leasing of
a commercial premises in order to carry on a business therein was prohibited
unless licensed under
section 4(2) of the
Competition Act. Anyone wishing to
operate a business in competition with the tenant may do so by occupying any
other premises within the State.
8. In
addition the agreements also provide, by way of the permitted user clause 12,
restrictions on the use of the premises but which effectively allow the
premises to be used for the purpose of the business of the tenant. Such
permitted user clauses are normally based on the user proposed by the tenant at
the time the lease is first executed but are also governed by considerations
such as the physical characteristics of the premises, the requirements of the
Planning Acts and the landlord's own policy, when granting the lease, on how
the premises should be used. The Authority considers that such user
restrictions in the letting of premises do not have the object or effect of
preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the State or in any part
of the State. In taking up the lease the tenant negotiates the permitted user
required for his business. This is reflected in the lease but if he were
subsequently to seek a change of user he could in most instances have recourse
to the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1980 which provide that a
landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent to a change of user requested by
the tenant. In addition the tenant is free to undertake other businesses in
many other premises, both in the vicinity or elsewhere in the State. The object
or effect of such permitted user clauses in the lease agreements are not
therefore anti-competitive. The Authority therefore considers that the notified
agreements between FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd and the Southern Health Board do
not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
The
Certificate
9. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies that in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the agreements between FBD Developments (Cork) Ltd and the
Southern Health Board in relation to the lease of premises at Cork Farm Centre,
Wilton, Cork notified under
Section 7 on 30 September 1992 (notification no.
CA/311/92E) do not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
The Competition Authority
Des
Wall
Member
12
October 1994.
© 1994 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1994/358.html