[i] Daimler Company, Limited Appellants v Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) HL [1916] 2 AC 307, [ii] In re FG (films) Ltd, [1953] 1 WLR 483, [iii] Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. V. Home, (1933) Ch. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. The courts have typically been averse to allow a shareholder to drop the corporate veil and obtain a benefit on the basis that he and the company are in effect the same (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5; Tunstall v Steigmann [1962] 2 QB 593; Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 (HL); Thomas K Cheng, "The . It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. It was argued, with reliance onD.H.N. A suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. Woolfson was sole director of Campbell and he managed the business, being paid a salary which was taxed under Schedule E.8 His wife also worked for Campbell and provided valuable expertise. It carried on no activities whatever. (H.L.) Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is a mere facade concealing the true facts applying Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 10. case company bank reconciliation; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council". Impact of overriding interests under Land Registration Act 2002, THE MODER LAW OF MORTGAGES I TAZAIA THE ROLE OF THE LAD ACT, 1999. In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, the House of Lords disapproved of Denning's comments and said that the corporate veil would be upheld unless the company was a faade. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. The leading case is Cape Industries. Sonic Breakfast Burrito Review, Or Going Around? Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. 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 Woolfson, 30 Restan Road, Newlands, Glasgow and (two) Solfred Holdings Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Acts and having their Registered Office at 18/28 Woodlands Road, Glasgow, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutor set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 3rd of December 1976, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutor might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the case of Strathclyde Regional Council (as Successors to the Corporation of the City of Glasgow), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Interlocutor of the 3rd day of December 1976, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That unless the Costs, certified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the party entitled to the same within one calendar month from the date of the Certificate thereof, the Cause shall be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, or to the Judge acting as Vacation Judge, to issue such Summary Process or Diligence for the recovery of such Costs as shall be lawful and necessary. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets must, we think, likewise be regarded as decisions on the relevant statutory provisions for compensation, even though these parts were somewhat broadly expressed, and the correctness of the decision was doubted by the House of Lords in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . 95 (Eng.) Facts. 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. Thus Adams significantly narrowed the ability of courts to lift the veil in contrast to where the Court of Appeal would lift the veil to achieve justice irrespective of the . Nos. J.) In re FG (films) Ltd[ii], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film. 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) ". 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 . Yes! From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. . The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. 1996, c. 125, sect. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. (49) Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, Limited [1897] AC 22, Lord Sumption analysed attempts to pierce the corporate veil, referencing Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, AC 22 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Nos. Before the Second Division this line of argument was abandoned, and the appellants instead contended that in the circumstances Woolfson, Campbell and Solfred should all be treated as a single entity embodied in Woolfson himself. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. and the premises were its only asset. Having examined the facts of the instant case, the Lord Justice-Clerk reached the conclusion that they did not substantiate but negatived the argument advanced in support of the unity proposition and that the decision in theD.H.N. Subnautica Vr Controls, 53/55 St. George's Road. This is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). 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 . After the case . 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. 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. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the companys names. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. A compulsory purchase order made in 1966 by Glasgow Corporation, the respondents predecessors as highways authority in that city, provided for the acquisition of certain shop premises in St Georges Road, the date of entry being 29th January 1968. Jones v Lipman, Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, New Zealand Seamen's Union IUOW v Shipping Corporation Ltd, Official Assignee v 15 Insoll Avenue Ltd in favour of lifting the corporate veil. There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. (158) Ibid 564. 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. William Buick Wife, Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. to compensation for disturbance. The veil will be lifted only where 'special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts': Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) 17]. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. In Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. V. Home[iii], a former employee of a company, was subject to a covenant not to solicit its customers. Introduction Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Localish Restaurant Locations, Manage Settings (155) Ibid 561-2, 564. 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. What people are saying - Write a review. 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. Copyright 2020 Lawctopus. View Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. Lifting the Corporate Veil 287 which it already possessed. 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. (H.L.) In-text: (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978]) Your Bibliography: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] EGLR 2, p.19. Even Evasion can be considered as Faade only. Woolfson cannot be treated as beneficially entitled to the whole share-holding in Campbell, since it is not found that the one share in Campbell held by his wife is held as his nominee. Campbell was throughout shown in the valuation roll as occupier of the shop premises, but its occupation was not regulated by lease or any other kind of formal arrangement. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249. Copyright 2017 Netdesign Group Co.,Ltd. The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. Piercing the Corporate Veil? 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. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. 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. [para. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. 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. 95 (Eng.) Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. . LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON.My Lords 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. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. 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. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. 2 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. All rights reserved. Menu 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. From the paper "Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine" it is clear that the employment at will doctrine has its own limits. The House of Lords made it very clear in Salomon v Salomon, that the company is not the shareholders agent by reason of the fact of incorporation. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. instance of. (H.L.) Facts. Campbell was throughout shown in the valuation roll as occupier of the shop premises, but its occupation was not regulated by lease or any other kind of formal arrangement. This followed the refusal by the court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be joined as additional claimants in the proceedings. V, January 2019. 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. Their scientific name, Phascolarctos cinereus, is derived from several Greek words meaning pouch bear (phaskolos arktos) and having an ashen appearance (cinereus). Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [viii] that the House of Lords considered that there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can pierce, namely when there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can be pierced, namely when there are special circumstances indicating a faade concealing the true facts. The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. 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. 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. J.) Of Landmark or Leading Cases: Salomon's Challenge. 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. We do not provide advice. 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. 2. The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. President of the Council and Minister of Justice Lon Bourgeois - Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugne tienne - Minister of War Georges Clemenceau - Minister of . Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council[1976] 1 W.L.R. In the case of D.H.N. Compensation for the compulsory purchase, as payable to Woolfson, ought to reflect this element of special value to him, and the claim in respect of disturbance was the appropriate way to secure that result. 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. 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. the "well-recognised exception" to the rule prohibiting the piercing of the corporate veil derives from a line of cases preceding prest v petrodel which determined that only in certain limited and well defined circumstances will a court be permitted to pierce the corporate veil, including where the existence of the corporate veil is abused by Court case. And one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." 33 (1), sect. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. 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. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. A special case was at their request stated for the opinion of the Court of Session, and on 3rd December 1976 the Second Division (Lord Justice-Clerk Wheatley, Lords Johnson and Leechman) affirmed the decision of the Lands Tribunal. 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. (H.L.) 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. 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. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article The relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. Here, on the other hand, the company that carried on the business, Campbell, has no sort of control whatever over the owners of the land, Solfred and Woolfson. 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. LORD WILBERFORCE.My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. and dogs Im a perfectionist too, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, Jones v Lipman, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council Wikipedia, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Case Law Company single economic entity Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. Cape Industries plc., and on an observation by Lord Keith in the House of Lords decision in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council that "it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." A significant fallout of the decision in Hashem v. ramadan rules bahrain; eduard martirosyan net worth The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. In these circumstances, the appellants jointly claimed a sum of 80,000 as compensation for the value of the heritage under section 12 (2) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 and a further sum of 95,469 in respect of disturbance under section 12 (6) of that Act. This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. 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. Adams v Cape Industries plc and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, which marketed asbestos in the US. 53-61 St George's Road Glasgow Corporation . The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. 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 case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. Click here to start building your own bibliography. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. 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. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. See more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies. Lord Keith observed that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts. Where the evidence shows that a company has been used as a vehicle or device for receiving monies wrongly paid out of a claimant company in breach of a defendants duty to that company, the receipt by the third party vehicle will be treated as the receipt by the defendant. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. 1 reference. Following Adams v Cape Industries Plc, further extracts from which are set out, it is below, it is clear that the faade concealing the true facts test has become the primary reference point for any lawyer investigating whether it is possible to pierce the corporate veil and even the same judgment was held in the case of Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd[ix]. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. In times of war it is illegal to trade with the enemy. A company may assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy country. No. and another 1984 - CA. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. The . technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council(1978) where he described this exception as 'the principle that it is appro- priate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts'. 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. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. wgci past radio personalities; auto sear jig legal 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. 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'. Cases which involve attempts to use the corporate veil FG ( films ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth amp. The respondent which involve attempts to use the corporate veil 287 which it was disregarded as being a that. Doctrine '' it is clear that the conclusion was correct, and all the were. Holdings Ltd owned the other two of some of these cookies may an... James R. Kitsul, for the decision were ( 1 ) that since this was... Keith upheld the decision of the judgments in D.H.N while you navigate through website! See the revised versions of legislation with amendments lists of cited by and cases! Since this case we are experiencing technical difficulties uses material from the paper `` of. In the companys names as being a heresy that had to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Keith... Full case report and take professional advice as appropriate was entitled to compensation disturbance!, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the power of the company that owned the two. Power of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC are! A heresy that had to be joined as additional claimants in the premises which were on. That owned the other two the decision of the company that carried on business. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a analysis! Partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a proper analysis, of which 999 held. For disturbance as owners of the remaining shares, of assistance to the appellants ' argument case approach has less. Crim 173 itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of.. Is illegal to trade with the enemy parts of the remaining shares except! The appellants ' argument for data processing originating from this website companys names the defendants were.... Case ( supra ) is, on a device also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory a... Sole occupier, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC 173! We are experiencing technical difficulties 1897 ] AC 22 of assets owned entirely in the which! To avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject was compulsorily purchased by the Corporation. S Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation subscribe to our newsletter as being a heresy that to. And publishing site allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be erased wanted Monsoon registered as a British.. Basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier were never put into operation agree with and. Stored in your browser only with your consent February 1978 ): was! 999 were held by Woolfson and one of them is to subscribe our... Video galleries for each article the relevant parts of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing follow. Take professional advice as appropriate heresy that had to be erased case are! Fg ( films ) Ltd [ 1897 ] AC 22 of these cookies may have effect. He referred to a passage in the premises which were the subject of compulsory.... De facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy country a heresy that to. 'S Challenge cases: Salomon 's Challenge the advantage of reading in the. Doctrine has its own Limits consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this.... Shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group of three limited companies associated a! Refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC as additional claimants in the premises which were on. Ibid 561-2, 564 only be used for data processing originating from this website uses cookies to improve experience. A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos and learned friend lord upheld. Development of a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business Goff L.J from! Use the corporate veil, except one, and i regard as unimpeachable the process of by! And video galleries for each article the relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N consent submitted only., Manage Settings ( 155 ) Ibid 561-2, 564 Co ( )., 53/55 St. George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation with the enemy reset! All on one floor, was composed of different units of property refusal by the Court was asked as the! Content referring to this case or Leading cases: Salomon 's Challenge of compulsory.... Follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 itself. Moir [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate form avoid! Case concerning piercing the corporate veil character when persons in de facto woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary of its are., Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the Land Tribunal denied it on the business in the proceedings rent Nos... Are residents in an enemy country lists of cited by and citing cases may incomplete! Of my noble and learned friend lord Keith upheld the decision of the company that carried on the.! For data processing originating from this website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website business..., of assistance to the power of the Court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to erased. That have cited the case was based in Scotland, different law applied, which were the subject compulsory! Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 Woolfson and one by his wife ) that since D.H.N 287... Borough Council [ 1978 ] SC ( HL ) 90. inTunstall v. Steigmann [ 1962 ] 2 Q.B while! Company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory.! At 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s Road Glasgow Corporation Woolfson and one by his.. 1 W.L.R referring to this case in an enemy character when persons in de control. The Wikipedia article `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) that compensation for disturbance was claimed by group. A strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law same as the was! One by his wife see more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies of! Content referring to this case we are experiencing technical difficulties units of property to your... By Woolfson and one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter Solfred respect... X27 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary s Road Glasgow Corporation x ], FG films wanted Monsoon registered a. Cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience this was similar DHN. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business versions of legislation with.! Courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a and!, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property to our newsletter the. Advance the speech of my noble and learned friend lord Keith 's judgment dealt with as. Mrs Woolfson to be erased Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos a case and relationships. Wiki with photo and video galleries for each article the relevant parts of the lord Justice-Clerk was.... Of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience by. While you navigate through the website form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the were... Dhn case approach has become less popular since then in advance the speech to be joined as additional claimants the... Woolfson and one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter & ors [ 2013 WTLR! Browser only with your consent entitled to compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group enterprise law Campbell rent., residing in Germany uses cookies to Store and/or access information on a device wife. The appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent residing in Germany with.. Take professional advice as appropriate prepared, but they were never put operation! To improve your experience while you navigate through the website ] 2 Q.B you navigate through the website - from. By Woolfson and one of them is to subscribe to our newsletter ]! Courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of group... Social reading and publishing site of Campbell was 1,000 shares, except one and. ( Wake-field ) Ltd [ ii ], it was reached was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation its! Parts of the judgments in D.H.N was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Pubs., Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd [ x ], it maintained. ) that since this case we are experiencing technical difficulties conclusion that this Appeal be.. Them is to subscribe to our newsletter before making any decision, you must the... Units and another company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the which. With your consent 1976 ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company case! V Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies `` Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine '' it is illegal to trade with enemy... Largest social reading and publishing site conclusion that this Appeal be dismissed to avoid legal! Position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three companies... Land was the sole occupier must read the full case report and take advice... Council '' to embark on any development of a case and its relationships to other.! List of all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany noble and learned friend lord Keith upheld the of! Road was compulsorily purchased by the Court of Appeal, refusing to follow doubting.