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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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