Irish Competition Authority Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Irish Competition Authority Decisions >>
Hanford Ltd/Tenants of Poplar House, Naas [1993] IECA 243 (15th December, 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1993/243.html
Cite as:
[1993] IECA 243
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
Hanford Ltd/Tenants of Poplar House, Naas [1993] IECA 243 (15th December, 1993)
Notification
No: CA/308/92E - Hanford Limited/Tenants of Poplar House Naas.
Decision
No: 243
Introduction
1. Notification
was made by Hanford 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 Hanford Ltd and its tenants at Poplar House,
Naas.
The
Facts
(a) Subject
of the Notification
2. The
notification concerns the lease of 14 shop and office units in Poplar House,
Poplar Square, Naas, Co. Kildare between Hanford Ltd as landlord and its tenants.
(b) The
Parties Involved
3. Hanford
Ltd, a subsidiary of FBD Insurance plc, is the owner and landlord of Poplar
House, Poplar Square, Naas, Co. Kildare. The tenants are engaged in various
retail and service activities at the shopping centre.
(c) The
Notified Arrangements
4. 14
leases have been notified. The restricted user clauses in the leases are as
follows:
(a) Under
clause 3.02(3) the tenant covenants with the landlord "To keep the demised
premises for the purpose of:
PROVIDED
ALWAYS
that the demised premises or any part thereof, shall not be used for the sale,
vending, consumption or otherwise of any type of foodstuffs on the said
premises for human or animal consumption only and not without the Landlord's
consent in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, to use or
permit or suffer the same or any part thereof to used for any other purpose".
(b) Under
clause 3.02(5) the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not to assign, transfer
or underlet or part with possession or occupation of the demised premises or
any part thereof or suffer any person to occupy the demised premises or any
part thereof as a Licensee
BUT
SO THAT NOTWITHSTANDING
the foregoing the Landlord shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to an
assignment of the entire or underletting of the entire of the demised
premises....."
(d) Under
clause 15 of the Fifth Schedule the tenant covenants with the landlord:"Not to
carry on itself, nor to allow to be carried on by any assignee, subtenant or
licensee of the Tenant any of the following professions, businesses or
occupations at the demised premises:
(a) Life
assurance, underwriters, brokers or agents.
(b) Insurance,
underwriters, brokers or agents.
(c) The
business of a Building Society.
(d) The
businesses of Stockbrokers and/or financial consultants.
(e) Wholesalers,
retailers, agents and dealers in interior furnishings of every description and
kind.
(f) Retailer
or wholesalers in shoes, boots or other footwear.
(g) A
bank.
(h) The
provision of selling of financial services".
The
above sub-clauses (a) to (h) are varied in each lease in the light of the
permitted user attaching to each lease.
In
addition there are a number of other standard restrictive covenants and
obligations in the leases.
5. Each
lease contains details of the Permitted User under clause 3.02(3) attaching to
each tenancy whereby the tenant is restricted to particular specified retail or
service activities. In addition details of exclusive user granted in respect of
a Building Society and the sale of interior furnishings have also been supplied.
Assessment
- The Applicability of Section 4(1)
6. The
Authority considers that Hanford Ltd and its tenants are undertakings and that
the notified leases are agreements between undertakings. The agreements have
effect within the State.
7. The
Authority considers that the notified agreements, and their restricted and
exclusive 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 any goods or services in the State or in any
part of the State, for the reasons given in the Notice of the Authority of 2
September, 1993 in respect of shopping centre leases (Iris Oifigiuil of 10
September, 1993, pp. 665-667). The Authority therefore considers that the
notified agreements between Hanford Ltd and its tenants do not offend against
section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
The
Certificate
8. 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 Hanford Ltd and its tenants in
relation to the lease of the premises at Poplar House, Poplar Square, Naas, Co.
Kildare, notified under
Section 7 on 30 September, 1992 (notification no.
CA/308/92E), do not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
the Competition Authority
Des
Wall
Member
15
December 1993
© 1993 Irish Competition Authority