![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Competition Authority v. Avonmore Waterford Group plc [1998] IEHC 164 (17th November, 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1998/164.html Cite as: [1998] IEHC 164 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
2. Subject
to one point regarding the question of requiring from the Competition Authority
an undertaking as to damages, it is therefore appropriate that I should move
directly to a consideration of the balance of convenience.
3. Heavily
in favour of granting the Order sought by the Authority must weigh the fact
that it is implementing statutory policy on behalf of the public and in
particular the policy of avoiding what it considers to be a likely breach of
the Competition Act if the proposed agreement between the Defendants were to
proceed. The Competition Authority has, in particular, asserted that any deal
between the Defendants which goes ahead cannot be "unscrambled", given,
especially, that parties who are not before the Court would be involved.
4. On
the other side of the scales I must weight several factors mentioned on behalf
of the Defendants, but in particular the following:-
5. With
regard to this last point, I have carefully considered the evidence and helpful
submissions made by Counsel on both sides and I conclude that damages (even
supposing they were exigible from the Authority) would not be an adequate
remedy in the event that I were to grant the injunction sought and were proved
incorrect at trial.
6. Even
so, I must consider, in the special circumstances of this case, whether I
should, notwithstanding, grant the order sought because it is sought by a State
Authority implementing statutory policy set out in the Competition Act.
7. Even
if the Competition Authority is correct in its primary submission that the
policy of the Act is to require an injunction despite the fact that such would
cause loss to the Defendant which is not compensatable, Counsel for the
Authority does not go so far as to submit that I have no discretion in dealing
with this application. I consider that I do have discretion, albeit that I
must give particular weight to the Applicant's case in the manner to which I
have already referred.
10. In
those circumstances it is not necessary that I make a determination one way or
the other as to whether an undertaking as to damages is something which can be
required from the Authority in such an application as this as a matter of course.