BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Hampden Group Plc/Reid Group Plc [1999] IECA 563 (27th July, 1999)
COMPETITION
AUTHORITY
Competition
Authority Decision of 27 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Section 4 of
the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No. CA/8/96 - Hampden Group Plc/Reid Group Plc
Decision
No. 563
Price £0.50
£0.90
incl. postage
Notification
No. CA/8/96 - Hampden Group Plc/Reid Group Plc
Decision
No 563
Introduction
1.
Notification
was made by Hampden Group plc, Reid Group plc and Moyne Shelf Company (No. 66)
Limited on 19th February 1996 with a request for a certificate under
Section
4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991 or, in the event of a refusal by the
Competition Authority to issue a certificate, a licence under
Section 4(2).
The
Facts
(a)
The Subject of the Notification
2.
The
notification concerns a joint venture agreement, dated 20th December 1995
between Hampden Group plc, (‘Hampden’) and Reid Group plc
(‘Reid’), for the sale of upholstered furniture and ancillary
goods. The Territory is Northern Ireland and the State.
(b)
The Parties Involved
3.
Hampden
Group plc whose registered office is in Belfast is a company which was
originally formed to trade a DIY franchise in Ireland for Texas, a well known
DIY retailer to the public. Hampden now exists as a holding company for the
operation of a number of retailing operations such as Texas (now Texas Homebase
Ireland Ltd) and Allied Carpets,
vide
Decision No 561. Reid whose registered office is in Glasgow is a holding
company and also a furniture manufacturer. No other company in either group
competes in the market effected by the arrangements in the agreement or in any
related market. Reid Furniture (Ireland) Limited (formerly called Moyne Shelf
Company (No. 66) Limited), is the joint venture through which it is intended
that there be made available to the general public, good quality mid-priced
upholstered furniture and ancillary products.
(c)
The Products and the Market
4.
The
products, as defined in the agreement, are upholstered furniture and related
products in the nature of occasional furniture, paintings, curtain material,
table lamps and the like as sold by Reid in Great Britain whether manufactured
by Reid themselves or acquired by Reid from third party suppliers. For the
purposes of this notification, the geographical market is the State.
5.
The
notifying parties submitted that the market for upholstered furniture and
related products is a large market in the State with many participants by way
of sellers and buyers. The notifying parties submitted that the market was
highly competitive, that it was easy for new suppliers and retailers to enter
the market and that the products were readily substitutable. For the year ended
31st December, 1995 the turnover of the Hampden Group plc was £36.8m.
Included in this figure is £7.8m turnover in respect of the State. The
profit of the company before tax was £1.5m. For the same period the
turnover in respect of the Reid Group plc was £25.4m,
vide
Decision Nos. 542 and 561.
(d)
The Notified Agreement
6. Hampden
and Reid have agreed to co-operate in the establishment and management of the
business of retailers of upholstered furniture and related products throughout
the Territory through the medium of a joint venture company, formerly called
Moyne Shelf Company (No. 66) Limited, with an authorised share capital of
£10m and registered in Northern Ireland. Hampden and Reid have agreed to
subscribe for shares in the company, which shall thereafter carry on such
business as a joint venture company, Reid Furniture (Ireland) Limited.
7.
Under
this agreement Reid will supply the products exclusively to the joint venture
at an agreed transfer price. Reid will make available to the joint venture any
methods or systems used and developed by Reid including the exclusive use in
the Territory only of Reids’ Trade Names and other identifying material,
methods of advertising and publicity. Reid will also make available to the
joint venture the design of store layout, ranges and displays utilised by Reid
throughout its retail outlets operated in Great Britain. Stock control
procedures, promotional operations and computer procedures will also be made
available by Reid to the joint venture.
8.
Reid
will make available to the joint venture a fair share of all advertising,
discounts and rebates on the products, equipment and services receivable from
suppliers. Reids market research will be made available to the joint venture as
well as training and training material required at the start up of the joint
venture.
9.
Operational
and financial management will be the responsibility of Hampden Group and a
General Manager will be appointed at the establishment of the joint venture.
Hampden will do whatever is necessary as to provide efficient day to day
management of the Company to at least the same standards as apply in respect of
Reid’s outlets in Great Britain. Hampden will also be responsible for
keeping true, proper and accurate accounts.
(e)
Arguments in support of the grant of a Certificate.
10.
The
parties claim that in view of the small percentage of market share which might
be captured by the joint venture and the free availability of alternative
suppliers of the products to the general public, that the arrangements in the
agreement will not have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or
distorting competition in the State or in any part of the State.
11.
The
parties, however, draw the Authority’s attention to Clause 18 of the main
agreement and Clause 1 Schedule 1 which refer to reciprocal lock-out provision
in the Agreement. Under Clause 18 of the main agreement each of the
shareholders, while holding shares in the joint venture company and for a
period of one year thereafter, shall not: (i) compete directly or indirectly
with any business of the company as carried on at the relevant date in the
Territory. (ii) solicit or endeavour to entice away from the company, any
person who during one year preceding the relevant date a manufacturer for or
supplier, customer or client of the company; (iii) supply or provide any goods
or services in the Territory to any person who was at any time during the
period of one year preceding the relevant date a customer or client of the
company to whom the company had during that period supplied or provided goods
or services in the Territory in the ordinary course of its business; (iv)
solicit or endeavour to entice away from or discourage from being employed by
the company any person who was at the relevant date an officer or employee of
the company whether or not such person would commit a breach of contract by
reason of leaving service (v) employ or engage or attempt to employ or engage
or negotiate or arrange the employment or engagement by any other person, firm
or company of any person who was at the relevant date
[1],
or was at any time during the period of one year prior thereto, an officer or
employee of the company.
12.
Under
Clause 1 Schedule 1 of this agreement Reid will supply the products exclusively
to the joint venture at an agreed transfer price. This shall not prevent Reid
selling in the Territory (a) goods which are sold by retail to the public which
do not compete with the products or (b) goods which are not intended to be sold
or are not in fact sold by direct retail to the public.
(f)
Arguments in support of the grant of a licence
13.
The
notifying party submitted detailed arguments in support of the granting of a
Licence. However, the Authority is of the opinion that the grant of a Licence
does not apply in this particular instance.
(g)
Other Information
14.
During
the course of the assessment of this notified agreement, the Authority was in
correspondence with the notifying party to confirm that the agreement, dated
20th December, 1995 was still in existence and that no amendments had been made
to it. By letter dated 8th April, 1999 the parties confirmed that the agreement
was still in existence but two amendments dated 29th May, 1998 and 10th June,
1998 had been made to the original agreement. The amendments relate to
operational and day to day management of the joint venture.
Assessment
(a)
Applicability of Section 4(1)
The
Undertakings and the Agreement
15.
Section
3(1) of the
Competition Act defines an undertaking as ‘a person, being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body engaged for gain in the
production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a service’
.
Both
Hampden Group plc and Reid Group plc are engaged in the production and
distribution of goods for gain, and they are therefore undertakings within the
meaning of
the Act. The agreement is an agreement between undertakings. The
agreement has effect within the State.
16.
The
Authority considers the agreement to be an agreement between a manufacturer of
furniture and a retailer and that such an agreement in general does not pose
any competition concerns. In view of the size and nature of the household goods
market generally and the number of participants,
vide
Decision No 542, para 5, the Authority is of the view that there is no prospect
of competition being eliminated in respect of the product(s) in this agreement
or in a substantial part of the market.
17.
The
Authority is of the view that the terms which are imposed on each of Hampden
and Reid are only those necessary to ensure the attainment of the objectives in
the agreement. It is the view of the Authority that no aspects of the agreement
restrict the parties in their freedom to take independent commercial decisions.
In line with previous, Decisions No 542 and 561, the Authority opines that
there will be a greater choice of product made available to the general public
as a result of this arrangement. The Authority considers that Clause 18 of the
main agreement and Clause 1 Schedule 1,
vide
paras 11 and 12, do not restrict or distort competition. The clauses do not,
therefore, contravene,
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act 1991.
18.
It
is therefore the view of the Authority that the agreement does not have as its
object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in
the State or any part of the State within the meaning of
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act.
The
Decision
19.
In the Authority’s opinion Hampden Group plc and Reid Group plc are
undertakings within the meaning of
Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act and the
notified arrangements constitute an agreement between undertakings. In the
Authority’s opinion the joint venture agreement dated 20th December, 1995
does not contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act.
The
Certificate
The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate
The
Competition Authority certifies that, in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the Joint Venture agreement dated 20th December, 1995
between Hampden Group plc and Reid Group plc notified under
Section 7 of the
Competition Act on 19th February 1996 (Notification No. CA/8/96), does not
contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991, as amended.
For
the Competition Authority,
Professor
Patrick McNutt
Chairperson
27
July 1999
[1]
For the purpose of this Clause ‘the relevant date’ means the date
in question or the termination date (whichever shall be the earlier).
© 1999 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1999/563.html