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 >>
O'Farrell, etc/Merchants Hall [1994] IECA 311 (21st April, 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1994/311.html
Cite as:
[1994] IECA 311
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
O'Farrell, etc/Merchants Hall [1994] IECA 311 (21st April, 1994)
Notification
No. CA/926/92E - Liam O'Farrell, and Philomena, Carmel Anne, Orlaith, Siobhan
and Seamus McDermott, and Geranth Ltd/Tenants of Merchants Hall
Decision
No.311
Introduction
1. Notification
was made by Liam O'Farrell and Philomena, Carmel Anne, Orlaith, Siobhan and
Seamus McDermott, and Geranth Ltd (OMG) 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 a standard lease between OMG and the
tenants of Merchants Hall.
The
Facts
(a) The
subject of the notification
2. The
notification concerns the standard lease relating to offices at Merchants Hall,
25/6 Merchants Quay, Dublin 8 between OMG as Landlord and 3 tenants.
(b) The
parties involved
3. OMG
are the owners and landlord of the office units at Merchants Hall. The tenants
are engaged in various commercial activities at Merchants Hall.
(c) The
notified arrangements
4. The
standard lease notified contains the following restricted user clauses viz.
(a) Under
clause 3.10 the tenant covenants with the landlord "To keep the demised
premises for the purpose of offices and Associated uses"
(b) Under
clause 3.11 the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not to assign underlet or
part with or share the possession or occupation of the Demised Premises or any
part thereof or otherwise alienate the same or suffer any person to occupy the
Demised Premises .......but so that notwithstanding the foregoing the Landlord
shall not unreasonably withold its consent to an assignment or under lease of
the entire of the Demised Premises ......"
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 OMG and their tenants are undertakings and that the
notified standard lease is an agreement between undertakings. The agreement
has effect within the State.
6. The
lease agreement contains standard restrictions and obligations on both landlord
and tenant 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.
7. In
addition the agreement also provides, by way of the permitted user clause 3.10,
restrictions on the use of the premises but which effectively allow the
premises to be used for the purposes 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 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
a 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 lease agreements are not therefore
anti-competitive. The Authority therefore considers that the notified standard
agreement between OMG and the tenants at Merchants Hall does 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 standard agreement between Liam O'Farrell and Philomena,
Carmel Anne, Orlaith, Siobhan and Seamus McDermott and Geranth Ltd and their
tenants in relation to the lease of office units at Merchants Hall, 25/6
Merchants Quay, Dublin 8 notified under
Section 7 on 30 September 1992
(notification no. CA/926/92E), does not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
the Competition Authority
Des
Wall
Member
21
April 1994
© 1994 Irish Competition Authority