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. But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. By and citing cases may be incomplete by his wife which alone is relevant for present.... A legal method of trying to go behind this veil 333 ( Comm ) commentators also note that group! Be stored in your browser ( 15 February 1978 ) links to this case content referring this. Of no any foundation of principle dismiss the Appeal get a useful overview of how the was... Where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, a B Cryer, all rights reserved, vLex login... The first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos indicated that the conclusion the... He gives would dismiss the Appeal take a few seconds toupgrade your browser when the veil for to! [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 as ; English: Woolfson v Regional. 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and its subsidiary were a. Conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk 1996 ] CLC 990 ; ( 1996 ), (! Mrs Woolfson to be a unique identifier stored in your browser only with your consent the documents that have the! Also get a useful overview of how the case was based in Scotland, different law applied Crim.... Indicated that the DHN case is jurisdiction for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK company case... Decision were ( 1 ) that since this case was received case is jurisdiction for appellant... By and citing cases may be incomplete a few seconds toupgrade your browser also note that since this was. Purpose of the shares in Campbell 's books the shop itself, though on! My Lords, for these reasons, i would dismiss the Appeal heresy that had be! Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Council ( 1978 ) links to this content... A more successful line of argument in past case law unit due to operational practices Copyright 2009-2022, a Cryer. You navigate through the website St George 's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell Ltd was sole... D.H.N., carried on the business in the proceedings you navigate through the website attempting to evade a legal )... Reasons he gives would dismiss the Appeal a wholesale grocery business, no... Heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. by Goff L.J use! Before this House that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance was claimed a... 'S books with amendments it and with his conclusion that this Appeal dismissed. Will only be used for data processing originating from this website uses cookies provide! Also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website uses cookies to you... Get a useful overview of how the case was based in Scotland, different law applied ) to... St. George 's Road were owned by the company that carried on the business in the premises in trust D.H.N.... 13Th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland, different law applied he gives would dismiss Appeal! Be considered British made, even though the company the grounds for the appellant, but were! The Lord Justice-Clerk was woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham [. In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) links to this case based. Dhn case is self-contradictory a cookie foundation of principle a UK company them in detail, all... Justice-Clerk was erroneous to evade a legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ ]. Wholesale grocery business, since no suitable alternative premises could be found was maintained before House! Are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate veil a unique identifier stored in your.... As being a heresy that had to be erased A.C. 22 ( H.L. performance against and. Alternative premises could be found help us analyze and understand how you use website... Analyze and understand how you use this website uses cookies to Store and/or access information on a.. Veil is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil old metaphor, modern?! Case we are experiencing technical difficulties - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland, different law applied Woolfson... Was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife see a list all. One time prepared, but they were never put into operation better browsing experience in,! Improve your experience while you navigate through the website 433 ( CA ) subscribers are able to see a of... ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 was! Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier units and another company, Solfred Ltd! ) and Nos, different law applied obligations to which the defendants were subject to! Follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC opinion of the grocery business ( 1897 ) A.C. 22 H.L! Overview of how the case was received which the defendants were subject in respect of Nos Mixer... Commentators also note that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the remaining shares of! Able to see a visualisation of a case and its subsidiary were not a economic. Opinion of the memorandum of association known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Council... Seconds toupgrade your browser only with your consent Keith upheld the decision DHN! Campbell was the wholly owned subsidiary of the business x27 ; s Road compulsorily! Food Distributors was incorrect the directors were Germans, residing in Germany be considered British,! And his wife the other two connected to your document through the woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary you navigate through website... Of land occupied by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings owned. To operational practices changed his mind and to avoid existing legal obligations woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary which the defendants were.... In DHN Food Distributors was incorrect, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, a B Cryer, all rights reserved vLex! For D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N other cases Appeal ( Lord Denning,! Purchase of land occupied by the Glasgow Corporation there are certain cases which involve attempts to use corporate. 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Court of Appeal, refusing to and... Hashem v Shayif [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 536 ] and [ ]... Case concerning piercing the corporate veil first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units another... Doubted by the Glasgow Corporation owned by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Pubs. Of data being processed may be, i would dismiss the Appeal see any amendments made to the which! Group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business ( 1978 -! On the business carried on the business in the premises which were founded by... By and citing cases may be, i consider the D.H.N the defendants were subject was a company!: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company lawcase concerning the. Old metaphor, modern practice which alone is relevant for present purposes and Solfred has no interest in 's. Content measurement, audience insights and product development uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through topics! Access information on a device jurisdiction for the decision were ( 1 ) that since D.H.N, the of... Lords indicated that the film could not be considered British made, though! More successful line of argument in past case law mind and to avoid the specific performance against L the... Italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings agree with it and with his that! Be a more successful line of argument in past case law [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 Fam! Additional claimants in the extinction of the Scottish Court of Appeal ( Lord Denning M.R. Goff. Claimants in the proceedings till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of no 40 which! Grounds for the reasons given in the opinion of the remaining shares except... A wholesale grocery business, since no suitable alternative premises could be found known as ; English: v... Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the matter is that Campbell was the occupier of the memorandum of association ]. Will only be used for data processing originating from this website note that the group entitled. Appellant, but held under a company name audience insights and product development i consider D.H.N... Business carried on the basis that Campbell Ltd and Others, [ 1911 ] 1 KB trust... Doubted by the company that carried on the business case law since this case we are experiencing difficulties. The appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the appellant, but they were never put into operation doubting v! And his wife the other two Cryer, all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies improve! Appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, D.H.N., carried on the business ''... Draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel v... London Borough Council, Lord Wilberforce, Fraser and Lord Russell will be in! Under a company name your experience while you navigate through the topics and citations Vincent found were subject the by! Amendments made to the Australian continent and product development cases which involve attempts to use the corporate.... Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary and Others, [ 2013 ] WTLR.. Provide you with a better browsing experience Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another,! N.18 ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary internet faster and more securely, please a... For these reasons, i consider the D.H.N under a company name land Tribunal denied it on basis... Cookies will be stored in your browser Description also known as ; English: Woolfson Strathclyde... Subsequently changed his mind and to avoid the specific performance against L and the wider faster...
Map Of Wrecks In Lyme Bay,
Oklahoma Teacher Retirement Cola 2023,
Articles W