Irish Competition Authority Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Irish Competition Authority Decisions >>
Adam F.Torrie (Properties) Ltd/Tenants at Broad Street Shopping Centre, Waterford [1993] IECA 261 (15th December, 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1993/261.html
Cite as:
[1993] IECA 261
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
Adam F.Torrie (Properties) Ltd/Tenants at Broad Street Shopping Centre, Waterford [1993] IECA 261 (15th December, 1993)
Notification
No: CA/895/92E - Adam F. Torrie (Properties) Limited/ Tenants at Broad Street
Shopping Centre, Waterford.
Decision
No: 261
Introduction
1. Notification
was made by Adam F. Torrie (Properties) Limited on 30 September, l992 with a
request for a certificate under Section 4(4) of the Competition Act, l99l 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 Adam F. Torrie
(Properties) Limited and its tenants at Broad St. Shopping Centre, Waterford.
The
Facts
(a) Subject
of the notification
2. The
notification concerns the leases relating to the shop units at Broad Street
Shopping Centre, Waterford between Adam F. Torrie (Properties) Limited as
landlord and the tenants of 20 shop units.
(b) The
parties involved
3. Adam
F. Torrie (Properties) Limited is the owner and landlord of the Broad Street
Shopping Centre. The tenants are engaged in various retail and service
activities at the shopping centre.
(c) The
notified arrangements
4. The
standard lease notified contains the following restricted user clauses viz.
(a) Under
clause 3.29 the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not to assign, transfer or
underlet or part with the possession or occupation of any part thereof or
suffer any person to occupy the Demised Unit or any part thereof as an
underlessee, licensee or as a concessionaire and in no circumstances or event
to an assignee who would carry on any business of a non-retail nature But
Notwithstanding the foregoing the Landlord shall.... not unreasonably withhold
its consent to an assignment, transfer or underletting of the entire of the
Demised Unit...."
(b) Under
clause 3.31.1 the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not without the prior
consent in writing of the Landlord or its Agent thereunto lawfully authorised
to use or permit or suffer or allow the Demised Unit or any part or parts
thereof to be used for any purpose other than as set forth in Part II of the
First Schedule hereto and for no other purpose or purposes whatsoever ......
Provided
Always And It Is Hereby Agreed And Declared
that
upon any application by the Tenant or any undertenant of the Tenant for liberty
to alter or change the aforesaid permitted user of the Demised Unit the
Landlord shall not unreasonably withhold its consent..."
(c) In
the First Schedule, Part II the definition for the Permitted User " means use
for the purpose of:
............and
such other (if any) use or uses which may (whether in addition to or in
substitution for the above mentioned use) at any time be expressly authorised
in writing by the Landlord."
Details
of the permitted user for each tenancy has been provided under which each
tenant at the shopping centre is restricted to particular specified trading
activities.
(d) By
way of side letters the landlord has also agreed to exclusive user in relation
to 5 units representing a Butchers, Newsagent/tobacconist, non specialist
general giftware, unisex hairdressing and Restaurant/Coffee shop while
assurances on a similar basis were issued in relation to 2 other units.
In
addition, there are a number of other standard restrictive covenants and
obligations in the lease.
Assessment
- The Applicability of Section 4(1)
5. The
Authority considers that Adam F. Torrie (Properties) Limited and the tenants
are undertakings and that the notified leases are agreements between
undertakings. The agreements have effect within the State.
6. 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, l993 in respect of shopping centre leases (Iris Oifigiuil of l0
September, l993, pp.665-667). The Authority therefore considers that the
notified agreements between Adam F. Torrie (Properties) Limited and its tenants
do not offend against Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, l99l.
The
Certificate
7. 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 Adam F. Torrie (Properties) Limited
and its tenants in relation to the lease of premises at Broad Street Shopping
Centre, Broad St., Waterford notified under Section 7 on 30 September 1992
(notification no. CA/895/92E), do not offend against Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, l99l.
For
the Competition Authority.
Des
Wall
Member
15
December 1993
© 1993 Irish Competition Authority