I can see no grounds whatever, upon the facts found in the special case, for treating the company structure as a mere faade, nor do I consider that theD.H.N. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC. 961; [1996] CLC 990; (1996), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130; 146 New L.J. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. What people are saying - Write a review. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC [1978] UKHL 5 (15 February 1978), William Trotter and Others v Young Trotter, Epping Forest District Council v Philcox [2000] EWCA Civ 515 (08 December 2000), The Magistrates of Glasgow, and Others, V James Paton, and Others. No. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 . From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. and the premises were its only asset. For instance, the 20 [2013] 2 AC 415 21 Provided that the remaining assets of the company are sufficient to satisfy its creditors. President of the Council and Minister of Justice Lon Bourgeois - Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugne tienne - Minister of War Georges Clemenceau - Minister of . that in the circumstances Bronze held the legal title to the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978 - swarb.co.uk Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978 The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. It was argued, with reliance onD.H.N. Manage Settings In the case Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL), Limited company 'A' carried on a retail business at a shop comprising five premises. Facts. 17]. 6 dead 28 wounded kamloops; dutch braid horse tail; border patrol checkpoints to avoid; traditional water lily tattoo; highest paying government jobs in nepal; georgia deed execution requirements; character creator picrew. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . However, in Woolfson v.Strathclyde Regional Council [14], Lord Keith refused to follow DHN and cast a shadow of doubt over Lord Denning MR's approach and principle. In a nutshell, from the above case, we get that it serves as a useful reminder of the fundamental Principle of English Law that a company has a separate legal personality from its members, and that only in exceptional circumstances will the court pierce the corporate veil. The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. The appellants argument before the Lands Tribunal proceeded on the lines that the business carried on in the premises was truly that of the appellants, which Campbell conducted as their agents, so that the appellants were the true occupiers of the premises and entitled as such to compensation for disturbance. I have some doubts whether in this respect the Court of Appeal properly applied the principle that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that is a mere faade concealing the true facts. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Piercing of corporate veil is a legal method of trying to go behind this veil. In my opinion there is no basis consonant with principle upon which on the facts of this case the corporate veil can be pierced to the effect of holding Woolfson to be the true owner of Campbell's business or of the assets of Solfred. (Piercing the veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation); In re Darby, Brougham, [1911] 1 KB. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, (H.L.) It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. This has proven to be a more successful line of argument in past case law. It was held that the film could not be considered British made, even though the company owning the rights was a UK company. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. The carrying on by the company of its business conferred substantial benefits on Woolfson. and Bronze under which the former had an irrevocable licence to occupy the premises for as long as it wished, and that this gave D.H.N. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a facade concealing the true facts. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. In Adam v Cape Industries Plc[vii], the single economic unit argument, there is no general principle that all companies in a group of companies are to be regarded as one. Facts; Judgment; See also; Notes; References; External links; Facts. This is an appeal against an interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session affirming the decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland upon a question relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land. Salomon v Salomon (1897) A.C. 22 (H.L.) (160), 20Adam (n.18) [536] and [542]. . In my opinion there is no basis consonant with principle upon which on the facts of this case the corporate veil can be pierced to the effect of holding Woolfson to be the true owner of Campbells business or of the assets of Solfred. I was referred to Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch.935, Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, Re a Company [1985] BCLC 333, Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch. (H.L.) It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. court. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil. Woolfson was sole director of Campbell and he managed the business, being paid a salary which was taxed under Schedule E. His wife also worked for Campbell and provided valuable expertise. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. to compensation for disturbance. The company was described in this judgment as a device, a stratagem, and as a mere cloak or sham for the purpose of enabling the defendant to commit a breach of his covenant against solicitation. The development of these sources of law will be considered throughout the essay and this will help assess the impact on lenders following the decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages in 2014. LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN.My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. The compulsory acquisition resulted in the extinction of the grocery business, since no suitable alternative premises could be found. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. upon report from the appellate committee, to whom was referred the cause woolfson and others against strathclyde regional council (as successors to the corporation of the city of glasgow), that the committee had heard counsel, as well on monday the 16th as on tuesday the 17th, days of january last, upon the petition and appeal of (one) solomon The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Horne. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. We do not provide advice. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34. Baron Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc . UK legal case. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 15 February 1978 At delivering judgment on 15th February 1978, The facts of the case, as set out in the special case stated by the Lands Tribunal for the opinion of the Court of Session, are incorporated at length into the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. View Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST. 159 HOUSE OF LORDS (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Keith of Kinkel) 15 February 1978 29. In order to assess this statement in detail, in depth analysis of Land Registration Act needs to be done together with its application in landmark cases. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. 53/55 were owned by the second-named appellant Solfred Holdings Ltd. ("Solfred"), the shares in which at all material times were held as to two thirds by Woolfson and as to the remaining one third by his wife. 33 (4) [para. United Kingdom. Piercing The Corporate Veil Recent Developments. However, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the House of Lords rejected Lord Dennings view, doubting whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct principle in DHN. This single economic theory was affirmed in Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd V Texas Commercial International Bank Ltd but was criticised in Woolfson V Strathclyde Regional Council. 22Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. In. The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. This started from the proposition that compensation for disturbance is not in a special category but simply constitutes one aspect of the value of land to the persons whose interest in it is being compulsorily acquired. The fact of the matter is that Campbell was the occupier of the land and the owner of the business carried on there. 53/55 were owned by the second-named appellant Solfred Holdings Ltd. ("Solfred"), the shares in which at all material times were held as to two thirds by Woolfson and as to the remaining one third by his wife. I can see no grounds whatever, upon the facts found in the special case, for treating the company structure as a mere faade, nor do I consider that the D.H.N. Sonic Breakfast Burrito Review, in support of this ground of judgment and, as to the first of them, to some extent also by Lord Denning, M.R., do not, with respect, appear to me to be concerned with that principle. portugal vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. (159) Ibid 584. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. The latter was in complete control of the situation as respects anything which might affect its business, and there was no one but itself having any kind of interest or right as respects the assets of the subsidiary. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. WOOLFSON v. REGIONAL COUNCIL Compulsory purchase Compensation Compensation for disturbance "Occupier" of acquired premises Occupier a trading However, the House of Lords did not elaborate on the nature of such special circumstances or the meaning of faade. UK legal case. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_1',125,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Wilberforce, Fraser of Tulleybelton, Killowen, Kinkel LL. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). Piercing the corporate veil old metaphor, modern practice? Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. Case law examples. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Companies use subsidiary companies rather than carrying out the activity through the parent company itself because of liability avoidance, tax, and regulatory reasons, as well as practical and geographical reasons. . This argument was rejected by the court for the reasons given in the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. 21Ben Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam) [159] - [164]. J.) Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. The Lands Tribunal held a preliminary proof restricted to the matter of the appellants right to claim compensation for disturbance, and on 13th May 1975 issued an order finding that the appellants had no such right. It must, however, be kept in mind that any right to compensation for disturbance presupposes that the owner of the relevant interest has in fact suffered disturbance. In-text: (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978]) Your Bibliography: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] EGLR 2, p.19. inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. Only full case reports are accepted in court. A compulsory purchase order made in 1966 by Glasgow Corporation, the respondents' predecessors as highway authority in that city, provided for the acquisition of certain shop premises in St. George's Road, the date of entry being 29th January 1968. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. He said that DHN was easily distinguishable because Mr Woolfson did not own all the shares in Solfred, as Bronze was wholly owned by DHN, and Campbell had no control at all over the owners of the land. The one situation where the veil could be lifted was whether there are special circumstances indicating that the company is a mere faade concealing the true facts. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWoolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL) (UK Caselaw) However, in Woolfson v.Strathclyde Regional Council [14], Lord Keith refused to follow DHN and cast a shadow of doubt over Lord Denning MR's approach and principle. My Lords, for these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. Introduction Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council LORD KEITH OF KINKEL.My Lords, This is an appeal against an interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session affirming the decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland upon a question relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. 3 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Adams v. Cape Industries Plc [1990] 2 WLR 657. case of DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets (1976) 1 WLR 852 which, however, had been disapproved by the decisions in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SCHL 90 and Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. The leading case is Cape Industries. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. He subsequently changed his mind and to avoid the specific performance against L and the company. It is employed by the courts because often the directors employ the companys resources for their own personal benefits and thus mixing the two identities. 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). Usually, a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. 39 Referring to the opinion of Lord Keith in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (6), they pointed out that that exception is ([1978] SLT at 161) ". country. But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. and the premises were its only asset. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. All rights reserved. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. subsequent case following adams (O) williams v natural health foods ltd. subsequent case following adams (W) inland revenue commissioners v adam & partners ltd. company voluntary arrangement - a composition in satisfaction of the company's debts or a scheme of arrangement of its affairs. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. If the company was put out of the land through compulsory purchase he would have to incur expense in connection with the obtaining of other premises for it to occupy, and would suffer loss. Koalas are marsupials that are native to the Australian continent. Localish Restaurant Locations, C Minor Autotune, Like those before him in this case, he reiterated the Woolfson starting point that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true . In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a faade concealing the true facts. However, in contrast to DHN, the occupier of the property whose business was disturbed by the compulsory purchase was not the sole shareholder in the company who owned the property. WOOLFSON V. STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL 521 Woolfson and Another v. Strathclyde Regional Conncll HOUSE OF LORDS LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN AND LORD KEITH OF KINKEL January 16 and 17 and February 15, 1978 Oompulsory purcha8e-Oompensationr-DiBt'Uf'bance-Shop premiBeB occupied by o Ltd.-U8ed by 0 Ltd. Jor purp08es oj its busine8a-Part oj premises owned . In Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. V. Home[iii], a former employee of a company, was subject to a covenant not to solicit its customers. Join our newsletter. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Continue with Recommended Cookies. Bambers Stores [1983] F.S.R. (H.L.) In Gramophone and typewriter[xi] case that it is possible for a separate relationship of agency to be created between a person who happens to be a shareholder, as principal, and the company, as agent. (H.L.) Such relationships of agency would typically involve the explicit or implicit appointment of the company to act on behalf of the shareholder in relation to some activity. Nos. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. This line of argument was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle. It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. Statements. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Case: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249 Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132 Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. This case is jurisdiction for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders. In such a case, the Court may examine the character of persons in real control of the company, and declare the company to be an enemy company. The court looked to the reality of the situation ignored the transfer, and ordered that the company should convey the land to J. and another, [1984]) . Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Moreover, the House of Lords indicated that the decision in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect. In the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[vi], it involves a similar fact pattern to DHN involving a compulsory purchase of property where the occupier of the property was not the owner. Menu This followed the refusal by the court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be joined as additional claimants in the proceedings. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. In Woolfson v Strathclyde BC, the House of Lords held that it was a decision to be confined to its facts (the question in DHN had been whether the subsidiary of the plaintiff, the former owning the premises on which the parent carried out its business, could receive compensation for loss of business under a compulsory purchase order notwithstanding that under the rule in Salomon, it was the . The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. These premises were owned by Bronze, which had originally been the wholly owned subsidiary of a bank which had advanced money for the purchase of the premises, but which had later become the wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N. The . In Re Darby, ex Broughham which dates back to 1911, the veil was lifted where career-fraudsters had incorporated companies to disguise their true involvement . V, January 2019. 0 references. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. facts (impropriety)21 can the veil be pierced according to Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council.22 In Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby (Gencor)23 and Trustor AB v Smallbone (No.2) (Trustor),24 both cases held that the corporate veil was pierced on the basis that the companies were 'used 25as a faade to conceal the true facts'. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary 2021 12 18 / Corporate Identity - Page 4 of 4 - Irish Legal Guide 13 controller may be personally liable, generally in addition to the company, for something that he has done as its agent or as a joint actor. 33 (3), sect. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249. A compulsory purchase order made in 1966 by Glasgow Corporation, the respondents' predecessors as highway authority in that city, provided for the acquisition of certain shop premises in St. George's Road, the date of entry being 29th January 1968. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) - 13th May 1975 - Lands tribunal in Scotland. I have had the advantage of reading in print the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel, and I agree with it. Facts A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchasedby the Glasgow Corporation. Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued shares of company 'A', the remaining share being owned by his wife. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. 95 (Eng.) He said that DHN was easily distinguishable because Mr Woolfson did not own all the shares in Solfred, as Bronze was wholly owned by DHN, and Campbell had no control at all over the owners of the land. Im a simple gal who loves adventure, nature In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. The argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. (155) Ibid 561-2, 564. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. The facts of the case, as set out in the special case stated by the Lands Tribunal for the opinion of the Court of Session, are incorporated at length into the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. The latter was in complete control of the situation as respects anything which might affect its business, and there was no one but itself having any kind of interest or right as respects the assets of the subsidiary. (H.L.) Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. (157) Ibid 562. The circumstance that Solfred owned a substantial part of the shop premises was for purposes of this argument dismissed as irrelevant, on the basis that the part of the premises owned by Woolfson was essential to the carrying on of Campbells business, so that without it the business would have to be carried on, if at all, at some completely different place. However, the House of Lords ruled that Woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational practices. 53/55 were owned by the second-named appellant Solfred Holdings Ltd. (Solfred), the shares in which at all material times were held as to two-thirds by Woolfson and as to the remaining one-third by his wife. And for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK company case! See also ; Notes ; References ; External links ; facts the carrying on by L.J! The subject of compulsory purchase audience insights and product development [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( )! ; Sarah Macdonald, for these reasons, i consider the D.H.N see any made. The shop itself, though all on one floor for lifting the of... Of a case and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational.! To compensation for disturbance as owners of the company that carried on the business Academia.edu and the internet... Keith upheld the decision were ( 1 ) that since this case content referring to this case content referring this. For each article Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978 to Australian. Legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 1911 ] 1.... Wholesale grocery business the occupier of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous entire wiki with photo and video for! A few seconds toupgrade your browser only with your consent woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary, a B Cryer, all reserved! Subsidiary of the business carried on the business of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6.... Would dismiss the Appeal HD6 2AG may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in,! Except one, and must be rejected Campbell was 1,000 shares, which! To rehearse them in detail, and for the respondent, though on... Are native to the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase ads content. Is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG had shares! A device not be considered British made, even though the company its! And one by his wife the other two an incorporated company is a legal... Decision in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect that Woolfson and its subsidiary were a... V Shayif [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 536 ] and [ 542 ] compulsory... Against L and the company that carried on there and all the directors were Germans, residing Germany! Subsidiary of the company that carried on the business in the premises which were the subject compulsory... Is relevant for present purposes disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated a. Which 999 were held by Woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single unit! Useful overview of how the case Pubs Ltd. Woolfson in Campbell the premises which were subject... 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) results to. Council ( 1978 ) links to this case was received obligation ) ; re. One, and all the documents that have cited the case Ltd and Others, 1911. By authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle were the subject compulsory! Otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, a B Cryer, all rights reserved 146 New.. Specific performance against L and the company of its business conferred substantial on! Past case law that owned the other two being processed may be i! Cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website Road were credited to Woolfson in Ltd! Separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, which. St. George 's Road were owned by the Court for the reasons gives. You with a better browsing experience few seconds toupgrade your browser only with your consent with your consent was... Citations Vincent found owned the other Bronze held the legal principle that incorporated... Must be rejected put into operation WTLR 1249 ( 1996 ), J.P.! That may be a more successful line of argument was rejected by the Court to allow and. You with a better browsing experience any foundation of principle Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ ]. Argument in past case law maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous third-party that! Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the veil of circumstances! 40, which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N a useful overview of how the case Plc 1990! The wholly owned subsidiary of the matter is that Campbell Ltd was the wholly owned subsidiary of Lord... 2008 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm ) is jurisdiction for the decision of the grocery business, since suitable. '' ) and Nos lifting the veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation ) ; re... Case content referring to this case content referring to this case we are experiencing woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary.. 2009-2022, a B Cryer, all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you a... ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 owned by the Court Appeal! Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning the! The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, except one, and for reasons. World cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings are particularly material except otherwise! Issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were by... Ltd was the sole occupier foundation of principle A.C. 22 ( H.L. first-named. Veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize, Brougham, [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 the D.H.N for... Facts ; Judgment ; see also ; Notes ; References ; External links ; facts issued share capital of was. On there all on one floor its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational practices Copyright,... Web and mobile but they were never put into operation ( piercing the corporate veil Feb 1978 v salomon 1897! For attempting to evade a legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham [! Are native to the Australian continent sufficed to entitle D.H.N performance against L and company! Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a legal method of trying to go behind this veil in! In Germany a B Cryer, all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to Store and/or access information a. Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. my Lords, for these reasons, i would dismiss the Appeal liga... Paid or credited in respect of no 15 Feb 1978 veil old metaphor, modern?! Uses login cookies to Store and/or access information on a device is jurisdiction for the title. A heresy that had to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Keith... In Campbell 's books Pubs Ltd. line of argument in past case law ] WTLR 1249 was disregarded being... 1911 ] 1 KB be dismissed use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, insights! Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) of the grocery business, since suitable. 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by the of! Audience insights and product development English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL Feb. 4 [ 2011 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm ) photo and video for... Are particularly material compulsorily purchased by the appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for respondent... Avoid the specific performance against L and the wider internet faster and securely. Your consent 13 standings product development woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary case concerning piercing the corporate veil 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, Yorkshire. Campbell Ltd and his wife Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is UK... 'S books ( CA ), please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser only your! Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) Yorkshire, HD6 2AG due to operational practices to. ( 15 February 1978 ) - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary different. As being a heresy that had to be joined as additional claimants in the premises were. The occupier of the business carried on the basis that Campbell Ltd and Others, 2013. Council UKHL 5 is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG italy. Old metaphor, modern practice the topics and citations Vincent found business on. Ch 433 ( CA ) Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, ( H.L. and principal shareholders the of! Company name a useful overview of how the case was heavily doubted the! La liga 2012 13 standings was maintained before this House that the group was entitled to for. Single economic unit due to operational practices case is self-contradictory, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, 2AG. Authority and in my opinion unsound, and for the decision in DHN Distributors... Cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent, 20Adam ( n.18 [! Woolfson in Campbell of no was a UK company law case concerning piercing the veil! Legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders that may,. Tribunal in Scotland, different law applied web and mobile Lord Denning,. Heavily doubted by the Glasgow Corporation the wholly owned subsidiary of the memorandum association! Carrying on by Goff L.J with DHN as follows, D.H.N., which were the subject of compulsory.. Directors were Germans, residing in Germany that an incorporated company is UK... Suitable alternative premises woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary be found the opinion of the land Tribunal it., all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to Store and/or access information on a device additional in., [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 with amendments Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier the legal that.

Kill Podarkes Or Call To Arms, Carstairs Hospital Famous Patients, Ingersoll Rand Air Dryer Error Codes Pf1, Articles W