0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Peninsula Securities Ltd v Dunnes Stores (Bangor) Ltd [2020] UKSC 36

2 October 2020

An exclusivity covenant given by a landlord of a shopping centre to an anchor tenant was not declared unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade.

Facts

A developer of a shopping centre in Northern Ireland granted in 1980 a long lease of part of the site to an anchor tenant (D). Under the lease, the developer covenanted that no part of the rest of the retail development would contain a retail unit measuring 3,000 square feet or more used for the purpose of trading in textiles, provisions or groceries. The developer subsequently transferred the reversion to the whole of the site to the respondent (P).

P was looking to reverse the decline in the shopping centre and sought a declaration that the exclusivity covenant was unenforceable.

Issue

Was the exclusivity covenant unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade?

Decision

The Supreme Court took the opportunity to change the law in this area and adopted the ‘trading society’ test as the correct one to use to determine an issue such as this. Under this test, a covenant which restrains the use of land will not engage the restraint of trade doctrine if it was of a type which has “passed into the accepted and normal currency of commercial or contractual or conveyancing relations” and which may therefore be taken to have “assumed a form which satisfies the test of public policy”.

As the exclusivity covenant entered into by the developer in 1980 was an accepted and normal type of covenant to find in a long lease of part of a retail centre let to an anchor tenant, the doctrine of restraint of trade was not engaged.

Points to note/consider

  1. Although this is a Northern Irish case, the Supreme Court used English case-law to arrive at its decision, so there is no reason to believe that the outcome of a similar case in England or Wales would be any different.

  2. This decision is good news for beleaguered anchor tenants and serves as a clear warning to landlords who are considering ignoring similar exclusivity covenants in shopping centre leases in a bid to revive an ailing centre.

    However, tenants should not overlook the fact that competition law could also come into play with exclusivity covenants such as these. In particular, the Chapter 1 prohibition on anti-competitive agreements in the Competition Act 1988 renders unenforceable agreements operating in the relevant market that have an appreciable effect on the prevention, restriction or distortion of trade in that market (unless an exemption applies).

Training and events

22Jun

Private sector development club Online

Guiding you through a planning update, corporate real estate and property joint ventures and dealing with agricultural tenancies.

View event

Focus on...

Regeneration review - where are we now?

Catch up on our regeneration video, where we look at four keys areas of regeneration; public law, planning, construction and real estate.

View

Legal updates

Wigan v Scullindale – local authority break rights in long development leases

The High Court has recently declared that a landlord’s break right in a long lease – expressed as being exercisable ‘at any time’ following a tenant default – had been validly exercised, even though the default in question had occurred 16 months prior to the break notice being served.

View

Legal updates

Covid-19 and dilapidations: a change to the working world

A reduction in demand for office space would in turn lead to an increase in dilapidations and repair claims - what is the possible impact?

View

Legal updates

Real estate quarterly update - January to March 2021

Read more about our latest real estate update aimed at in house lawyers (and other professionals) practising in the property and real estate sector.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

David Harris

David Harris

Professional Development Lawyer

View profile

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up