Shamrock/Brookline [1993] IECA 32 (9th September, 1993)

Shamrock/Brookline [1993] IECA 32 (9th September, 1993)

The sale element of the transaction was completed before the Competition Act, 1991 came into force and thus falls outside the scope of Section 4(1); the non-compete clause was ancillary and did not have the object or effect of restricting competition.

Citation
[1993] IECA 32
Parties
Subject Company: Shamrock Foods Limited; Subject Company: Shamrock Foods (Distributors) Limited; Purchaser: Brookline Limited; Vendor: Whitworth Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Competition Notification / Decision on Notification
Outcome
certificate granted
Legal Topics
Non Compete Clauses, Merger Control, Ancillary Restraints
Competition Law Non Compete Clauses Merger Control Ancillary Restraints

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamrock Foods Limited

Subject Company

Shamrock Foods (Distributors) Limited

Subject Company

Brookline Limited

Purchaser

Whitworth Holdings Limited

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Competition Notification / Decision on Notification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement and non-compete clause offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991

Ratio Decidendi

The sale element of the transaction was completed before the Competition Act, 1991 came into force and thus falls outside the scope of Section 4(1); the non-compete clause was ancillary and did not have the object or effect of restricting competition.

Court Disposition

certificate granted

Orders

  • The Competition Authority certifies that the agreement did not offend against Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991 during the period in which it operated.