Notification No. CA/921/92E ‑ Fitzwilliam Trust Company/
Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Limited

Decision No. 296

Introduction

1.	Notification was made by Fitzwilliam Trust Company 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 lease between Fitzwilliam Trust Company and Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Ltd.

The Facts

(a)	The subject of the notification

2.	The notification concerns the lease of a premises at 10 Ladd Lane, Dublin 2 between Fitzwilliam Trust company as the landlord and Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Ltd as the tenant.

(b)	The parties involved

3.	Fitzwilliam Trust Company is the owner and landlord of the premises at 10 Ladd Lane, Dublin 2.  Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Ltd is engaged in the business of economic consultancy.

(c)	The notified arrangements

4.	The notified lease was made on 12 December, 1991 for a period of 5 years from 1 November, 1991.  The restricted user clauses in the lease are as follows:

(a)	Under clause 3.10 the tenant covenants with the landlord"Not without the prior consent in writing of the Landlord or its lawfully authorised agents to use or permit or suffer to allow the Demised Premises to be used for any purpose other than as professional offices PROVIDED ALWAYS AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED that upon any application by the Tenant for liberty to alter or change the aforementioned permitted use of the Demised premises it shall be reasonable for the Landlord to refuse its consent on the grounds that the change of user sought would substantially increase the rate of insurance in respect of the Demised Premises or nearby or Adjoining Premises."

(b)	Under clause 3.11 the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not to assign, underlet or part with the 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 or concessionaire except with the previous consent in writing of the Landlord BUT SO THAT NOTWITHSTANDING the foregoing the Landlord shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to an assignment or underletting of the entire 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 Fitzwilliam Trust Company and Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Limited are undertakings and that the notified 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 allows 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 agreement between Fitzwilliam Trust Company and Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Ltd 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 agreement between Fitzwilliam Trust company and Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants Ltd in relation to the lease of No. 10 Ladd Lane, Dublin 2 notified under Section 7 on 30 September 1992 (notification no. CA/921/92E), does not offend against Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.

For the Competition Authority

Des Wall
Member
10 March 1994