Anyone who has ever thrown a dice onto Monopoly's well known multi-coloured board and entered into the inevitable tussle over the dark blues of Park Lane and Mayfair knows the competitive advantages that can arise from controlling a certain property market or sector.
The Competition Act 1998 was put in place to prevent abuse of a dominant market position (as regularly seen around Monopoly boards up and down the country), the distortion of trade and restriction of competition. However, until as recently as April 2011, the UK property market was not subject to its provisions as it did not originally apply to agreements for land (i.e. leases and land transfers).
It is easy to see why the use of restrictive covenants or restricted user clauses are widely used in land transfers or leases - a pub owner selling off adjacent land with development potential would almost certainly impose a restriction on the sale of alcohol and a tenant is delighted when their landlord agrees to restrict competing uses in other premises. Similarly, a landlord of a shopping centre is concerned to procure a good mix of tenants offering a range of goods and services to attract as many customers as possible.
On 6 April 2011 the nature of the game changed and the Competition Act 1998 became applicable to all land agreements.
Any agreement that may affect trade in the UK and which, whether as its object or effect, prevents, restrict or distorts competition, is void unless it falls within certain specific exemptions.
An otherwise anti-competitive agreement may however be rescued where it:
It is easy to see how the Competition Act might catch transactions involving parties with an already dominant position in their relevant market (e.g. major supermarkets). However, the first (and so far, only) case involving competition law in a land agreement demonstrates that the rules affect all players in the property game, large and small. The case concerned Crawley Borough Council and Martin Retail Group Limited (which has a nationwide chain of newspaper and convenience stores).
Crawley were in the process of granting Martins a shop lease (for premises, which they already occupied under a previous lease) in a parade of 11 shops in Furnace Green, Crawley. Crawley refused to widen the permitted use from a newsagents to include the sale of groceries and alcohol on the basis that Martins would then compete with the "Premier Furnace Green Supermarket", which also had a shop on the parade.
Martins argued that such a restrictive user clause fell foul of the Competition Act 1998. Crawley agreed, but argued that they fell within the exemption on the basis that the restrictive user was required in order to:
Finally, the Council argued that the restriction did not eliminate competition because there was a Tesco Express 1km from the shopping parade, which was a competitor to Premier Furnace Green Supermarket.
The burden of proof was on Crawley to demonstrate that they met the criteria for the exemption and they failed. The Judge flagged that it was hard for him to rely either on Council employees as witnesses who were clearly not independent or on written statements from local residents when he did not know how they had been selected or what they had been asked to say. The Council did not have any written lettings policy to point to, did not demonstrate how customers would benefit from the restrictive letting policy and the Judge felt that no one would walk for more than 10 minutes for a pint of milk so the Tesco Express was not a competitor to the parade. Finally he decided that Crawley could have achieved a mix of retailers by less restrictive means.
Get out of jail free
The Martins Retail case was very much decided on its specific facts. The Judge did say that a lease on a new-built scheme with a similarly worded restriction designed to allow a key anchor tenant to establish itself might fall within the exemption, if the anchor tenant was going to attract customers to the centre in sufficient numbers.
So, if you are considering a restrictive user clause/covenant, which is likely to distort competition in a particular market, consider the following to see if you fit within the exemption:
If all else fails, make sure your document contains a severance clause so that, if the restriction is void because of the Competition Act, the rest of the agreement remains in force. A severance provision is damage limitation; it does not give you carte blanche to include a dubious restrictive covenant because the penalties for breach of competition law can also include financial penalties. Above all else – consult a good lawyer and don't leave it to the chance card...
About the author
Katherine Ekers qualified as a solicitor in 2011 and is a rising commercial property star at Forsters LLP.
Have you any commercial property events you'd like to tell us about? It could be networking, exhibitions, seminars, industry lunches or sporting fixtures. We will list them for free. Just email newsdesk@propnews.co.uk with the following details: Event name, date, time, venue, cost, booking info and a brief description of the event.
To list your property job vacancies on Property News. Email: richenda@propnews.co.uk.