BAILII [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]


Competition Authority v. Avonmore Waterford Group plc [1998] IEHC 164 (17th November, 1998)

THE HIGH COURT
1998 No. 12135p
BETWEEN
COMPETITION AUTHORITY
PLAINTIFF
AND
AVONMORE WATERFORD GROUP PLC AND
ATHBOY CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY LIMITED
DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice O'Sullivan delivered on the 17th November, 1998

1. The parties are agreed that there are substantial issues for determination at the trial.

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:-


1. The second Defendant's agreements with its milk suppliers is terminable on three months' notice so that the subject matter of its agreement with the first Defendant is transient, intangible and, it is claimed, a wasting asset;
2. The deal, if permitted, can be unscrambled, or an appropriate adjustment made at trial, and indeed, the Competition Act proceeds upon the basis (albeit in a different context) that such redress is possible; and
3. There will be an inevitable loss by the Defendants.

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.

8. However, in light, especially, of the

1. fragility of the second Defendant's good will;
2. the relative percentage market shares involved (and in this I refer not
to the issue for determination at trial but to any potential impact on the
market pending trial), and
3. my conclusion that damages (even if exigible) would not be an
adequate remedy, I consider that the balance of justice requires that

9. I refuse to make the order sought by the Competition Authority.


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.


© 1998 Irish High Court


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1998/164.html