Merchant's Quay Developments Ltd/Peter Mark [1993] IECA 62 (5th October, 1993)
The lease, including its restrictive and exclusive user clauses, does not have the object or effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition in trade in any goods or services in the State or any part of the State, and therefore does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
- Citation
- [1993] IECA 62
- Parties
- Landlord: Merchant's Quay Developments Limited; Tenant: Peter Mark
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Competition Notification / Decision on Certificate Under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991
- Outcome
- certificate issued
- Legal Topics
- Exclusive Dealing, Restrictive Covenants, Shopping Centre Leases
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Merchant's Quay Developments Limited
Landlord
Peter Mark
Tenant
Procedural Posture
Competition Notification / Decision on Certificate Under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 1991
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lease agreement between Merchant's Quay Developments Limited and Peter Mark contains clauses that prevent, restrict, or distort competition contrary to Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Ratio Decidendi
The lease, including its restrictive and exclusive user clauses, does not have the object or effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition in trade in any goods or services in the State or any part of the State, and therefore does not offend Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Court Disposition
certificate issued
Orders
- The Competition Authority certifies that the agreement between Merchant's Quay Developments Limited and Peter Mark in relation to the lease does not offend against Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment