‘Arrogant’ Heffernan ignored store wars complaint
Court defeat for Dunnes
DUNNES chief Margaret Heffernan ignored a number of letters of complaint from Aldi over an unlawful price comparison campaign, the High Court heard.
The German chain eventually lodged a High Court case against Dunnes in 2013 over unfair marketing tactics that was heard over 20 days last year. A month ago, Aldi won the case.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan ruled last month that Dunnes had given its customers ‘false information’ during a price war with Aldi over a range of everyday essential products. Yesterday, Judge Cregan began hearing arguments from Aldi as to what sanctions should be imposed on Dunnes on foot of his ruling.
Aldi is seeking an injunction to stop Dunnes running a similarly unlawful marketing campaign again.
Ultimately, the German chain will also seek a compensation payout. Aldi was represented yesterday by former justice minister Michael McDowell and former Attorney General Paul Gallagher.
Paul Gallagher SC, for Aldi, told the court that Dunnes Stores’ failure to respond to letters sent in 2011 and 2012 showed an ‘extraordinary arrogance’.
When asked by Judge Cregan why Dunnes didn’t reply to the letters, Michael Howard SC, f or Dunnes, said: ‘They don’t reply to competitors. That’s Dunnes Stores policy.’
Mr Howard claimed it was ‘slightly desperate’ for Aldi to point to a ‘discourtesy’ in relation to correspondence not replied to.
Mr Gallagher said that Dunnes appeared to see this policy as a ‘badge of honour’, adding: ‘Because someone is a competitor, you ignore their legal right. You don’t j ustify them with a re - sponse.’
Mr Gallagher later added: ‘You’ve written to the chairperson of Dunnes [ Margaret Heffernan]. Someone who doesn’t even respond.
‘Just ignore what’s happening. Give no undertaking. And try and put this off as long as possible.’
In i ts l awsuit, Aldi accused Dunnes of making unfavourable price comparisons with Aldi using in- store banners and ‘shelf- edge’ labels.
Mr Gallagher said yesterday that Dunnes’s actions were ‘very deliberate’ over a long period of time and certainly ‘not a onceoff ’.
Judge Cregan ruled last month that when it came to 14 products – including tomato ketchup and pork sausages – Dunnes had failed to compare like with like.
For example, in the case of tomato ketchup, the judge concluded: ‘The Aldi product is a better quality product.’
In a 158-page, 40,000-word ruling, Judge Cregan found the Aldi versions of sparkling orange drink and strawberry yoghurt were ‘higher quality’ and therefore ‘not comparable’ to Dunnes.
The judge ruled that Dunnes’s use of the phrase ‘Always Better Value’ on certain shelf-edge labels was ‘clearly false information’.
The actions of Dunnes were described by Aldi’s lawyers as a ‘calculated and protracted nationwide campaign’ to ‘take on Aldi’ in every one of its stores in the land.
Ultimately, Aldi won the case on
Aldi product ‘of a better quality’
almost every point.
But yesterday, the Dunnes team argued their campaign is over, that it was unsuccessful and that it would be ‘oppressive’ and ‘futile’ to now serve them with an injunction. Mr Howard argued that Dunnes should not be ‘shackled with an injunction’ – with a risk that Dunnes bosses could be sent to jail if found in breach of it.
He insisted that Dunnes would be ‘under the risk of attachment and committal [to prison]’ when designing any future campaign.
But Judge Cregan pointed out that if an injunction is granted, then Dunnes would simply have to ensure that ‘all their ads are in conformity with the law’.
The hearing will continue on Tuesday. Judge Cregan will decide at a later date whether to grant an injunction and/or an award of damages to Aldi.