A & N Pharmacy Ltd v United Drug Wholesale Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MISS JUSTICE MELLACARROLL
• Judgment Date: 15 February 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-HC 1
• Date: 15 February 1996
• Court: High Court

1996 WJSC-HC 1

THE HIGH COURT

No.8894P/1995

A & N PHARMACY LTD v. UNITED DRUG WHOLESALE LTD

BETWEEN

A & N PHARMACY LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

UNITED DRUG WHOLESALE LIMITED

Defendant

Citations:

COMPETITION ACT 1991 S6

COMPETITION ACT 1991 S4

COMPETITION ACT 1991 S5

COMPETITION ACT 1991 S5(1)

Synopsis:

INJUNCTION

Mandatory

Competition - Restriction - Prohibition - Wholesaler - Supplies -Provision - Refusal - Plaintiff pharmacist alleged to be not creditworthy - Late payment of debt to defendant wholesaler -Payment made 35 years before suit - Defendant directed to supply plaintiff - (1995/8894 P - Carroll J. - 15/2/96) - [1996] 2 ILRM 42

|A. & N. Pharmacy Ltd. v. United Drug Wholesale Ltd.|

TRADE

Competition

Restriction - Prohibition - Wholesaler - Supplies - Provision - Refusal - Plaintiff pharmacist alleged to be not creditworthy - Late payment of debt to defendant wholesaler - Payment made 35 years before suit - Defendant directed to supply plaintiff - Competition Act, 1991 (No. 24), ss. 5, 6 - (1995/8894 P - Carroll J. - 15/2/96) - [1996] 2 ILRM 42

|A. & N. Pharmacy Ltd. v. United Drug Wholesale Ltd.|

TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGMENT

1 DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE MELLACARROLLON 15TH FEBRUARY 1996

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiff:

James O'Reilly SC

Gerard Hogan BL

Instructed by

Houlihan McMahon

For the Defendant:

Ercus Stewart SC

Instructed by

O'Donnell Sweeney

2 This is an application for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant (United Drug Wholesale Limited) to supply dispensing drugs to the plaintiff (A & N Pharmacy Limited) which has started up a new pharmacy in Limerick.

3 There are three wholesalers in Limerick supplying dispensing drugs: the defendant, Cahill May Roberts and Uniphar. The plaintiff has applied to all three and is unable to procure supplies. Between them they control over 90 per cent of the business in Limerick. The plaintiff has elected to sue the defendant which has premises near by.

4 The defendant refuses to supply the plaintiff because, it says, it is not satisfied with the plaintiff's creditworthiness and because Mr Twiggs, who is a pharmacist and who has a 51 per cent holding in the plaintiff, was involved in an incident thirty-five years ago. Apparently Mr Twiggs was a pharmacist in a family-owned business in Castlebar. Due to family difficulties, Mr Twiggs left the business on the understanding that his father would pay its debts, including one owed to the defendant, which his father did. The defendant says that it is objectively justified in refusing to supply the plaintiff because of MrTwiggs" conduct...