British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
Irish Competition Authority Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Irish Competition Authority Decisions >>
Navenby/Alpha [1993] IECA 36 (5th October, 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1993/36.html
Cite as:
[1993] IECA 36
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
Navenby/Alpha [1993] IECA 36 (5th October, 1993)
Notification
No. CA/861/92E - Navenby Limited/Alpha Packaging Films Limited/Messrs. Gracie
and Fearnley
Decision
No. 36
Introduction
1. An
agreement between Navenby Limited (Navenby) and Messrs. Ian Gracie and Roy
Fearnley (the vendors) containing a non-compete clause pursuant to the sale of
part of the issued share capital of Alpha Packaging Films Limited (Alpha) was
notified to the Competition Authority on 30 September 1992. The notification
requested a certificate or, in the event of a certificate being refused, a
licence.
The
Facts
(a) The
Subject of the Notification
2. The
notification relates to an agreement dated 28 April 1989 between the vendors
and Navenby whereby the vendors agree to sell their share (55.556%) of the
issued share capital of Alpha to Navenby. The agreement also contains a
non-compete provision.
(b) The
Parties
3. Alpha
Packaging Films Limited is a limited company incorporated in England. Prior to
its sale, the vendors, who were based in the U.K., held a combined shareholding
of 55.556% in the company and were its only directors. Navenby is a limited
company with registered offices at 41-45 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2. Under
the terms of the agreement, the vendors received shares in Navenby by way of
consideration for the sale.
(c) The
Arrangements
4. The
notification relates to an agreement, dated 28 April 1989, for the sale of
55.556% of the share capital of Alpha to Navenby. The agreement contained a
non-compete clause preventing the vendors from becoming involved a business
which competed with Navenby for a period of two years from the date of
completion. This period expired on 28 April 1991.
Assessment
(a) Section
4(1)
5. Section
4(1) o f the Competition Act states that '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 are
prohibited and void'.
(b) The
Undertakings and the Agreement
6. Section
3(1) of the Competition Act defines an undertaking 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.' The parties to the present agreement are the vendors and Navenby.
Navenby is limited company with registered offices in Dublin. It is engaged
for gain through its interest in Alpha, an English based company engaged for
gain in the packaging business. The vendors, as directors and principle
shareholders in Alpha, were similarly engaged for gain at the time of the
agreement. They were therefore undertakings at the time of the agreement.
This is consistent with the Authority's decisions in ACT/Kindle and
Scully/Tyrrell
[1].
(c) Applicability
of Section 4(1)
7. As
the sale of business was completed prior to 1 October, 1991, the date on which
the Competition Act came into force, this element of the agreement had been
discharged by performance before the Act commenced. The property which was the
subject of the agreement had been transferred. In the Authority's view, the
prohibition in Section 4(1) only applies to a current or continuing contractual
commitment or one entered into subsequent to the coming into force of the Act
[2].
As the merger or sale element of the 1991 transaction was discharged prior to
the commencement of the Act, that aspect of the arrangements does not come
within the scope of Section 4(1).
8. The
non-compete clause had also expired before the Act came into force. Thus, in
the Authority's view, there was not an agreement between undertakings in
existence at, or since, the time the Act came into force. The notification is
therefore invalid and the Authority is unable to grant a certificate or licence.
The
Decision
9. In
the Authority's opinion, Navenby Limited, Ian Gracie and Roy Fearnley are
undertakings within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Competition Act. As the
entire agreement had expired before 1 October 1991, the notified arrangements
do not constitute an agreement which was in existence at the time, or since,
the Act came into force; it cannot be validly notified under Section 7(1) or
7(2) of the Competition Act and the Authority cannot issue a certificate or
licence in respect of the notification.
For
the Competition Authority,
Patrick
Massey
Member
24
September 1993
Notes:-
2. 'Notice
in respect of Mergers and Takeovers which predate the Competition Act'-
Competition Authority,Iris Oifigiuil,14 May 1993,P.367
© 1993 Irish Competition Authority