United Drug plc/Kodak and Sterling-Winthrop [1994] IECA 367 (28th October, 1994)

The agreement is a pure delivery arrangement, does not involve purchase and resale, and does not restrict competition. None of its clauses offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.

Citation: [1994] IECA 367
Parties: Notifier: United Drug plc; Counterparty: Kodak Ireland Ltd; Counterparty: Sterling-Winthrop Ireland Ltd
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Competition Authority Notification / Decision on Certificate Under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991
Outcome: Certificate issued: agreement does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Legal Topics: Exclusive Delivery Agreements, Distribution of Pharmaceutical Products, Section 4 Competition Act 1991

Competition Law Exclusive Delivery Agreements Distribution of Pharmaceutical Products Section 4 Competition Act 1991

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

United Drug plc

Notifier

Kodak Ireland Ltd

Counterparty

Sterling-Winthrop Ireland Ltd

Counterparty

Procedural Posture

Competition Authority Notification / Decision on Certificate Under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991

Legal Issues

1 Whether the delivery agreement between United Drug plc and Kodak/Sterling-Winthrop restricts, prevents, or distorts competition under Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement is a pure delivery arrangement, does not involve purchase and resale, and does not restrict competition. None of its clauses offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.

Court Disposition

Certificate issued: agreement does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.

Orders

Certificate issued stating the delivery agreement does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.