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]
Lee/Musgrave [1993] IECA 147 (18th November, 1993)
Notification
No. CA/100/92 - Lee & Company Ltd./Musgrave Ltd.
Decision
No. 147
Introduction
1. An
agreement between Lee & Company Limited (Lee) and Musgrave Limited
(Musgraves) containing a non-compete clause pursuant to the purchase and sale
of Lee's cash and carry business in Sallynoggin, was notified to the
Competition Authority on 22 September 1992. The notification requested a
certificate or, in the event of the Authority refusing to grant a certificate,
a licence. Notification of the transaction was also made to the Minister for
Industry and Commerce under the Mergers Act, 1978 with clearance being obtained
on 20 October 1992.
The
Facts
(a) Subject
of the Notification
2. The
notification relates to an agreement dated 9 September 1992 between Lee and
Musgrave providing for the sale by Lee of its cash and carry warehouse in
Sallynoggin, County Dublin to Musgrave. A statement of objections was issued to
the parties on 30 September 1993, to which a response was received on 27
October 1993.
The
Parties
3. Musgrave
Limited is a holding company with registered offices in County Cork. Its
divisions trade exclusively in the grocery business in the Republic of Ireland.
Musgraves Distribution Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Musgraves,
operates a similar business in Northern Ireland.
4. Musgraves
operate nine cash and carry warehouses within the State. They are also
involved in the retail sector of the grocery industry through their ownership
of SuperValu and Centra Distribution Limited which exclusively supplies a
number of retailers trading under the SuperValu and Centra names.
5. Lee
& Company (Dublin) Limited is a Dublin-based company engaged for gain in
the cash and carry business. Following the sale of its business in
Sallynoggin, it now operates just one cash and carry business, at Thomas Street
in Dublin. Its business forms part of the Keen Cost group of cash and carry
operators which has a number of members throughout the country.
(c) The
Product and the Market
6. The
business being acquired by Musgrave is that of a cash and carry in south County
Dublin. A cash and carry business can be defined as an outlet involved in the
wholesale of groceries and other goods to independent members of the retail
trade and also to hotels and catering groups. The goods supplied by most cash
and carry outlets can generally be put into four categories, namely,
wines/spirits, frozen foods, catering supplies and hardware. With the
exception of one business in Cork, Musgraves, with five outlets in the 32
counties, is the only cash and carry business to offer an additional feature,
that of the provision of fruit and vegetables. Cash and carry outlets
generally are not involved in the sale of goods of a short shelf life. Nor are
they generally involved in the supply of goods to multiple and symbol outlets.
Those outlets have their own network of suppliers organised by their head
office or a wholesaling group.
7. There
are 112 cash and carry outlets within the State, all of which are involved in
the sale of goods to independent retailers. It is claimed that the prices of
items do not vary greatly from one wholesale outlet to another so there are no
great savings to be achieved by "shopping around". Not all outlets offer the
same range of goods, however. Nevertheless it is claimed that there is little
incentive for a retailer to travel outside his immediate environs in search of
better conditions of purchase.
8. The
Authority considers that the actual size of the potential market in terms of
area would vary depending on the location of the business. In the Authority's
view a cash and carry outlet attracts customers from a wide area. Other
outlets within a reasonable driving time can be regarded as competing with it
and therefore considered to be in the same geographic market. This means that
in the case of the business in Sallynoggin, the market would include most of
south County Dublin and North Wicklow. In this area, there are five other cash
and carry businesses. Of these, two are engaged solely in the sale of
non-grocery items such as toys, greeting cards, stationery, toiletries and
cosmetics and are not, therefore, engaged in competition with the business in
Sallynoggin. The three remaining businesses have warehouses ranging in size
from 16,000 to 30,000 square feet. The Sallynoggin warehouse, at 45,000 sq.
feet, is 50% larger than its largest competitor. In addition, it is the only
business in the area to deal in the sale of fruit and vegetables as part of its
grocery business.
(d) The
Arrangements
9. The
agreement, as notified, provides for the sale of Lee's cash and carry business
at Sallynoggin to Musgrave. Clause 22 of the agreement contained a restrictive
covenant as follows:
"The
Vendor and the Directors of the Vendor who join in this Agreement for this
purpose hereby undertake not to engage in or carry on the business of a
Wholesale Grocer or Cash and Carry for a period of three years from the date
hereof within a radius of five miles from the Vendors premises at Sallynoggin
Road, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin and not to canvas, issue mail shots or make
deliveries within the said five miles
PROVIDED
ALWAYS
and it is hereby agreed that nothing herein shall prevent the Vendor from
continuing to trade from its Thomas Street, Dublin or other premises outside
the five mile radius above referred to or continuing its association with AND,
Keencost, Centicom Limited and I.A.D.T. Limited. The Vendor and its Directors
hereby agree to accept any amendments to this Clause as may be sought by the
Competition Authority. The Vendor will furnish a restrictive Covenant in this
form duly executed by all the parties on the Completion."
(e) Submissions
of the Parties
10. In
support of the inclusion of a three year non-compete provision in the
agreement, the parties referred to the Authority's decisions in Nallen/O'Toole
and Athlone Travel/Michael Stein
[1]
where the Authority allowed the inclusion of a three year non-compete clause.
The parties also referred to the Authority's decision in Phil Fortune/Budget
Travel
[2]
where the Authority acknowledged that a non-compete period may be necessary to
afford a purchaser the opportunity of establishing the reputation of a
newly-acquired entity.
11. It
was further submitted that because there were a number of similar outlets in
the region, competition would not be restricted by the imposition of a three
year non-compete clause on the vendors.
Subsequent
Developments
12. The
Authority issued a statement of objections to the notifying parties, setting
out the reasons why in its opinion, clause 22 of the agreement offended against
section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991, and why the arrangements did not
satisfy the requirements for a licence under
section 4(2).
13. In
a letter to the Authority dated 27 October 1993, the parties indicated that
they were prepared to amend clause 22 to provide for the duration of the
restrictive covenant to be reduced from three years to two years.
Assessment
(a) Section
4(1)
14.
Section
4(1) of 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
15.
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 Lee and Musgrave. They are
both corporate bodies engaged in the provision of goods for gain and are
therefore undertakings within the meaning of
the Act.
(c) Applicability
of Section 4(1)
(i) The
acquisition agreement
16. The
present arrangements therefore constitute an agreement between undertakings
whereby Lee has sold its cash and carry business in Sallynoggin, County Dublin
to Musgrave. The Authority has stated in a number of previous decisions that
so long as merger-type arrangements do not result, or are not likely to result
in, a diminution of competition, then, in its opinion, they do not offend
against
Section 4(1).
17. Musgrave
is a company with a long established name in the grocery business. It is
primarily involved in the wholesale supply of goods to retailers trading under
the Musgrave-owned SuperValu and Centra names. It is also well established in
the cash and carry business with outlets in Ballymun (North Dublin), Clondalkin
(West Dublin), Cork and Belfast. It does not operate a cash and carry business
within a ten mile radius of its newly- acquired outlet in Sallynoggin. The
Authority does not believe, therefore that the acquisition results in any
degree of concentration in the market and that the sole effect of the takeover
is to provide Musgrave with an entry into, what was for it, a new and
previously untapped market. The Authority believes, therefore, that the sale
element of the agreement does not have the effect of preventing, restricting or
distorting competition and, for this reason, does not offend against
section
4(1).
(ii) Restraint
on competition
18. Clause
22 of the agreement provided that the vendor could not operate a cash and carry
business within a five mile radius of the premises at Sallynoggin for a period
of three years.
19. The
Authority has outlined its views on non-compete clauses in a number of previous
decisions
[3].
In these, the Authority indicated that, in the case of a sale of business,
some restriction on the seller may be necessary to ensure the complete transfer
of goodwill of the business. It stated that, provided the restriction was
limited in terms of its duration, geographical coverage, and subject matter to
what was necessary for the complete transfer of goodwill, then the restriction
was not in breach of
Section 4(1) of
the Act. The Authority has stated that
it generally regards a restriction of two years as sufficient to ensure the
complete transfer of the goodwill of a business. This view was reiterated in
the Authority's decision in GI/General Semiconductor in which it was stated that
"..having
now considered several such agreements .....where only the transfer of goodwill
is involved it (the Authority) will generally not accept a restriction on
competition of more than two years."
20. In
support of the three year duration of the clause, the parties referred to the
Authority's decisions in Nallen/O'Toole and Athlone Travel in which a three
year non-compete clause was allowed. However, the Authority considered that
the circumstances of that agreement differed from those contained in the
present one. In Nallen/O'Toole, the Authority acknowledged the fact that the
products concerned were purchased infrequently and this, coupled with the
degree of personal contact which was considered an important feature of the
business concerned, justified the inclusion of a three year non-compete clause.
The parties, in referring to the Authority's decision in Phil Fortune/Budget
Travel in further support of their arguments, stated that this agreement
contained a non-compete provision of three years. This statement is incorrect.
That agreement, contained a non-compete clause of two years duration. This was
accepted by the Authority. The parties argued that the cash and carry business
involves close customer contact and, because Musgrave have not previously
operated a cash and carry business in the area, that a non compete provision of
three years was essential to allow them the opportunity of establishing a
reputation in the South Dublin/North Wicklow area. The Authority accepts that,
in the sale of business, a non-compete period can be essential in establishing
a reputation. However, the Authority does not believe that its duration
should exceed what is absolutely necessary to achieve this objective. In Phil
Fortune/Budget Travel, the purchaser, although having some experience in the
business, had not previously operated her own business. A two-year non-compete
provision was considered appropriate to the circumstances. The Authority
cannot accept that Musgrave, given its size and its established reputation in
the cash and carry business, would need anything more than two years to
establish itself in the South Dublin/North Wicklow area. To the extent that
the non-compete provision contained in clause 22 exceeded this two year period,
the Authority considered that the clause offended against
section 4(1) and did
not satisfy the requirements for a licence under
section 4(2). As the parties
agreed to reduce the duration of the non-compete clause from three years to two
years, the Authority considers that it no longer exceeds what is necessary to
secure the complete transfer of goodwill in the sale of the business and
consequently, no longer offends against
section 4(1).
21. The
effect of clause 22 is confined to a five mile radius of Lee's former business
in Sallynoggin. The geographical extent of the clause, does not, in the
opinion of the Authority, exceed what is necessary to secure the complete
transfer of the goodwill. It is confined to the business of operating a cash
and carry outlet and is therefore acceptable in terms of subject matter.
The
Decision
22. In
the Authority's opinion, Lee & Company (Dublin) Limited and Musgrave
Limited are undertakings within the meaning of
section 3(1) of the
Competition
Act and the notified arrangements for the acquisition of Lee's cash and carry
business at Sallynoggin, County Dublin constitute an agreement between
undertakings. In the Authority's opinion, the arrangements do not have as their
object or effect, the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. The
agreement dated 9 September 1992, for the sale by Lee of its cash and carry
business in Sallynoggin, County Dublin to Musgraves, as amended by the letter
of 27 October 1993, does not, in the Authority's opinion, offend against
section 4(1).
The
Certificate
23. 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 agreement between Lee & Company Limited and Musgrave
Limited for the sale by Lee & Company Limited of its cash and carry
business in Sallynoggin, County Dublin, to Musgrave Limited, (notification no.
CA/100/92), notified to the Authority on 22 September 1992, and amended by the
letter of 27 October 1993, does not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
the Competition Authority
Patrick
Massey
Member
18
November 1993.
[ ] 1 Competition
Authority Decisions, No. 1 - Nallen/O'Toole (Belmullet), 2 April, 1992 and No.
3 - Athlone Travel Limited/Michael Stein Travel Limited, 4 June 1992.
[ ]2 Competition
Authority Decision No. 9 - Phil Fortune/Budget Travel Limited, 14 September,
1992.
[ ]3 Decision
No. 10 - GI Corporation/General Semiconductor Industries Inc, 23 October, 1992.
© 1993 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1993/147.html