High Court to set early hearing of ‘keep open’ dispute in Tesco superstore

DCM Editorial Summary: This story has been independently rewritten and summarised for DCM readers to highlight key developments relevant to the region. Original reporting by Irish Times, click this post to read the original article.

A dispute over a “keep open” clause in an agreement between Tesco Ireland Ltd and an independent retailer with space in one of the supermarket chain’s stores is to be given an early hearing date, the High Court heard.

Tesco has been given temporary undertakings from homewares chain Choice Stores not to shut its outlet, which is within a Tesco superstore at Poleberry, Waterford city, pending hearing of the dispute.

The case is against Multi Home Retail, trading as Choice Stores.

Andrew Fitzpatrick, for Tesco, and Joe Jeffers, for the defendant, told the court on Thursday that the undertakings to keep the Choice outlet open had been complied with, but the parties were looking for an early hearing date of the matter.

Judge Brian Cregan said he expected to be able to give a date for next month.

The court was previously how told Choice started removing its stock during the weekend of January 17th and 18th following notification from it to Tesco that it would be winding down operations in Poleberry.

Tesco then sought an injunction against Choice for alleged breach of a 10-year licensing agreement to operate the in-store outlet. The defendant opposes the injunction staying in place.

Choice has occupied a 13,239sq ft unit in the shared superstore area at an annual licence fee of €214,000 since September 2024.

There is a “break option” in the licence agreement in the fifth year.

Despite approaches by Tesco about measures that would keep the outlet open, Choice was adamant it would be winding down. Choice also said there were provisions in the licence agreement allowing for termination in certain circumstances. Tesco says there is no such provision.

Tesco says if Choice is permitted to withdraw then the presence of a large and conspicuous vacant unit in a prominent location posed a real and material risk of reputational and commercial harm to the centre and its occupiers.