0370 270 6000

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).

Focus on...

Legal updates

Regeneration funding: Securing Compulsory Purchase Orders in the face of escalating building costs

The focus on the Levelling Up agenda and the availability of grant funding, means there are numerous important regeneration schemes actively being pursued across the country. With ever-escalating project and building costs, in many cases, applications that were made for grant funding were based on costs contingencies that have already been exceeded.

View

Blogs

Cameras in convenience stores: a potential hornet’s nest..?

A convenience retailer has opted to install cameras (the “Facewatch” system) at a limited number of its English stores to reduce crime and protect its staff.

View

Press releases

Browne Jacobson advises Birmingham City Council on its £26.4m acquisition of ‘best in class’ building 9 Colmore Row

Browne Jacobson’s real estate lawyers have advised longstanding client, Birmingham City Council on its acquisition of 70,000 sq ft building, 9 Colmore Row, located in the heart of Birmingham’s central business district.

View

Blogs

Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed

The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.

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