Irish Competition Authority Decisions

1. Notification was made by Bridtron Ltd 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 Bridtron Ltd and the tenants of 9/10 Lower Bridge Street.

2. The notification concerns the standard lease relating to offices at 9/10 Lower Bridge St, Dublin 8 between Bridtron Ltd as Landlord and the tenants.

3. Bridtron Ltd is the owner and landlord of the premises at 9/10 Lower Bridge St. The tenants are engaged in various commercial activities at the premises.

4. The standard lease notified contains the following restricted user clauses viz.

(a) Under clause 3.2(3) the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not, without the prior consent in writing of the Landlord or its Agent thereunto lawfully authorised, to use or permit or suffer to allow the Demised Premises or any part thereof, to be used for any purpose other than offices and associated uses ........"

(b) Under clause 3.2(4) the tenant covenants with the landlord "Not to assign transfer, underlet mortgage, charge or otherwise encumber or part with the possession or occupation of the Demised Premises or any part thereof .... except with the previous consent in writing of the Landlord BUT SO THAT NOTWITHSTANDING the foregoing the Landlord shall not unreasonably withold its consent to an assignment, underletting, transfer, mortgage or charge of the entire of the Demised Premises subject to the following...."

In addition there are a number of other standard restrictive covenants and obligations in the lease.

5. The Authority considers that Bridtron 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 3.2(3), 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 Bridtron Ltd and the tenants at 9/10 Lower Bridge St 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 Bridtron Ltd and their tenants in relation to the lease of office units at 9/10 Lower Bridge St, Dublin 8 notified under Section 7 on 30 September 1992 (notification no. CA/925/92E), does not offend against Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.

For the Competition Authority

Des Wall

Member

21 April 1994