Ir.Distillers/Cooley Dist. [1994] IECA 285 (25th February, 1994)
The Authority found that the relevant market is the Irish whiskey market in Ireland, that the notified arrangement would eliminate the only independent competitor to Irish Distillers Group plc in that market, and that significant barriers to entry exist. The acquisition would therefore restrict or distort competition contrary to section 4(1) of the Competition Act. The Authority further found that the arrangement did not satisfy the requirements for the grant of a certificate or licence under section 4(2), as no sufficient benefits to outweigh the anti-competitive effects were demonstrated.
- Citation
- [1994] IECA 285
- Parties
- Applicant: Irish Distillers Group plc; Respondent: Cooley Distillery plc
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Competition Notification/merger Control / Decision on Notification for Certificate or Licence Under Competition Act
- Outcome
- refused certificate and licence
- Legal Topics
- Market Definition, Abuse of Dominance, Merger Control, Barriers to Entry, Relevant Product Market, Relevant Geographic Market
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Irish Distillers Group plc
Applicant
Cooley Distillery plc
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Competition Notification/merger Control / Decision on Notification for Certificate or Licence Under Competition Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed acquisition of Cooley Distillery plc by Irish Distillers Group plc would restrict or distort competition in the relevant market under section 4(1) of the Competition Act
- 2 Whether the arrangement qualifies for a certificate or licence under section 4(2) of the Competition Act
- 3 Definition of the relevant product and geographic market
Ratio Decidendi
The Authority found that the relevant market is the Irish whiskey market in Ireland, that the notified arrangement would eliminate the only independent competitor to Irish Distillers Group plc in that market, and that significant barriers to entry exist. The acquisition would therefore restrict or distort competition contrary to section 4(1) of the Competition Act. The Authority further found that the arrangement did not satisfy the requirements for the grant of a certificate or licence under section 4(2), as no sufficient benefits to outweigh the anti-competitive effects were demonstrated.
Court Disposition
refused certificate and licence
Orders
- Certificate under section 4(2) of the Competition Act refused.
- Licence under section 4(2) of the Competition Act refused.
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