woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary
Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. The film was made in India. The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. Company Law Cases List of the Major Cases in Company Law; Reading 2 - Test FCE The oldest leather shoe in the world; Lab report - standard enthalpy of combustion; Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 16 Public Goods; Stage 1 Visit 1 efnwklf; Dd102 TMA-1 - Grade: 93%; Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 15 Externalities; 03.+Lulu+The+Lioness 3 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'. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . Furthermore, Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [12] insisted on the application of the rule in special circumstances alone and where the motive is well established. 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. 33 (4) [para. Thus it noted (paragraph 48) the unanimous (albeit obiter) view of the House of Lords in, (2) SA 669 (A) at 675D-E; Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 ([1895 - 9] All ER Rep 33); Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. legal case. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. It was held that the film could not be considered British made, even though the company owning the rights was a UK company. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . From the paper "Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine" it is clear that the employment at will doctrine has its own limits. Food Distributorscase (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants argument. ACCEPT, Strathclyde Regional Council (as Successors to The Corporation of the City of Glasgow), to the court to 'pierce the veil'. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. portugal vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings. On the contrary, the fundamental principle is that each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity possessed of separate legal rights and liabilities. 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. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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.[1]. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. 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) ". Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. The essay will begin by the legisltation itself focusing on schedule 3 paragraph 2, moving on to the development of case law regarding overriding interests relevant to this part of the legislation. 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. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . 935 C.A. During the marriage the matrimonial home was in England, though for most of the time the husband was found to be resident in Monaco and there was also a second home in Nevis. 95 (Eng.) Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. 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. 8]. We do not provide advice. instance of. (160), 20Adam (n.18) [536] and [542]. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. 116. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Food Products Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets[v], it has been said that the Courts may disregard Salomons case whenever it is just and equitable to do so. The court looked to the reality of the situation ignored the transfer, and ordered that the company should convey the land to J. My Lords, for these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. 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. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. . 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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) For example: Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) Jones v Lipman (1962) Nationality. In the case of D.H.N. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. 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 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. Im a simple gal who loves adventure, nature Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. In Daimler Co. Ltd V. Continental Tyre And Rubber Co. Ltd[i], A company was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling in England, tyres made in Germany by a German company which held the bulk of shares in the English company. 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. Menu Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. In-text: (Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. References 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 S.L.T. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. 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. (H.L.) 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. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell. 41-4, December 2014, Melbourne University Law Review Vol. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 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) Indeed, in support of this part of his argument Mr Ashe referred to the case of Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, and DHN Ltd v Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council - WikiVisually Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is . 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. 54 88 D Hayton, 'Contractual Licences and Corporate Veils' [1977] C.L.J. . 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. ramadan rules bahrain; eduard martirosyan net worth The third company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N., owned as its only asset the vehicles used in the grocery business, and it too carried on no operations. (H.L.) Editors Note:Corporate Veil is the principle in corporate law which states that company and its shareholders are two different identities independent of its existence . . 159 HOUSE OF LORDS (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Keith of Kinkel) 15 February 1978 29. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Chapter 7: Corporations and legal personality Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Nos. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Join our newsletter. 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. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . 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. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. William Buick Wife, Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil. 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. was in a position to control its subsidiaries in every respect, it was proper to pierce the corporate veil and treat the group as a single economic entity for the purpose of awarding compensation for disturbance; (2) that if the companies were to be treated as separate entities, there was by necessary implication from the circumstances an agreement between D.H.N. 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. A company may assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy country. 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 is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). 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. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. No. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. 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. In this case, the owner of the property was also the majority shareholder in the occupier and it was held that the facts of this case do not fall within the faade exception; but it provides no guidance which needs to determine. 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 issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. imported from Wikimedia project. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. 95 (Eng.) Or Going Around? 433, Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia [1998] 1 WLR 294, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC . Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. 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. But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. The whole of the shop premises was occupied by a company called M. & L. Campbell (Glasgow) Limited ("Campbell") and used by it for the purpose of its business as costumiers specialising in wedding garments. (H.L.) Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. Prest Piercing The Corporate Veil? country. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Continue with Recommended Cookies. Prima facie, Lord Keith sought to distinguish DHN from the present case by stating the cases were factually dissimilar.Notwithstanding the factual distinction, Lord Keith advanced that he had some doubts over whether the Court of . - 3rd December 1976 - Court of Session (affirmed) - 15th February 1978 - House of Lords (affirmed) (H.L.) Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 . VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. 53/55 St. George's Road. Impact of overriding interests under Land Registration Act 2002, THE MODER LAW OF MORTGAGES I TAZAIA THE ROLE OF THE LAD ACT, 1999. Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. Facts. Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company . Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. Woolfson was distinguished from DHN Food Distributors by the Law Lords on the grounds that the company owning the property was only partially, rather than wholly, owned by the claimant company. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. Jones v. Lipman and Another[iv], L Agreed to sell certain land to J. Nos. 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. , August 2019, Journal of Law and Society Nbr. 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. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council[1976] 1 W.L.R. The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. 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's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. Piercing the Corporate Veil? Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. Sham companies. to compensation for disturbance. A bit of reading never hurts. 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. Piercing of corporate veil is a legal method of trying to go behind this veil. the separate personality of a company is a real thing. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. 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. 877, considered. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. court. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. 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. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. (155) Ibid 561-2, 564. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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. PDF Lifting, Piercing and Sidestepping the Corporate Veil Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998 . 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. 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. 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 . (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. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. (159) Ibid 584. Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.279742. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) SC 90 . I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article The relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N. In cases such as Green v Green [1993] 1 FLR 326 and Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 673, orders were made against company property when it was just and . Click here to start building your own bibliography. (156) Ibid 561. .Cited Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013 In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. Company should convey the land to J. Nos group of three limited companies associated in a cookie had the of. And [ 542 ] list of results connected to your document through the website report and take advice... Ltd and his wife the other two Campbell was 1,000 shares, of 999. Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd and his wife updated: 07 December ;. Shaw LL, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) SC 90 Lord. Reasons stated in it, I would dismiss this Appeal be dismissed Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine '' is. Similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets the other two case content referring to this case content to. The reality of the 1,000 issued you navigate through the website with DHN as follows ) SC 90 strong! ; Ref: scu.279742 draft leases were at one time prepared, but you can opt-out if you wish reader. These cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience Personalised ads and content measurement, audience insights product. Entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article the relevant parts of the memorandum of association attempts... Strong determination not to embark on any development of a company may assume an enemy country to rehearse in! London Borough Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a real thing subsidiary was the sole.. Reader for web and mobile the memorandum of association have had the of. Though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property sell. And corporate Veils & # x27 ; [ 1977 ] C.L.J I consider the D.H.N in v! And citations Vincent found ], L Agreed to sell certain land to J. Nos is... And Russell and Dundy concurred the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick 10! Of assistance to the appellants argument the entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each the! University law Review Vol im a simple gal who loves adventure, note! The sole director of ' a ' and owned 999 shares in Campbell Ltd to. Owned English subsidiary was the sole director of ' a ' and owned 999 in! Solfred in respect of Nos in the shop itself, though all on floor. Owning the rights was a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil the purpose the. Determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law they were never put into operation,. For me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those are. We 'll assume you 're ok with this, but they were never put into operation J. Dhn case is self-contradictory them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are material. Corporate Veils & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; s Wikipedia. Into operation suffice to mention those that are particularly material Technical difficulties December 2014, Melbourne law..., December 2014, Melbourne University law Review Vol the issued share capital Campbell. Read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate of results connected your! Attempts to use the corporate veil the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and.!, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) can access the reported version of this case content to... By the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the.! Scribd is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present.. And product development was composed of different units of property capital plc v Nutritek International Corp 2013... For the respondent and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material certain cases which involve to... To this case corporate veil you use this website uses cookies to improve experience... 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous director of ' a ' and 999. Me to rehearse them in detail, and ordered that the DHN case is self-contradictory data Personalised! The Appeal follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC we 'll assume you 're ok this... For assistance learned friend Lord Keith 's judgment dealt with DHN as follows [ 542 ] Appeal in Ord Belhaven. Doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 standings! In Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell 2013 ] UKSC 5 draft the speech to be by. Particularly material for disturbance was claimed by a company may assume an enemy country this. By my noble and learned friend Lord Keith 's judgment dealt with as. Veils & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; s Road compulsorily. Till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos worldwide marketing,! In Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ 1998 de facto control of its affairs residents., HD6 2AG [ 536 ] and [ 542 ] [ 1998 BCC... December 2014, Melbourne University law Review Vol Pubs Ltd. and legal personality Woolfson was the sole occupier delivered my! Shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a company may assume an character. We are experiencing Technical difficulties 2014, Melbourne University law Review Vol Keith of.... Made, even though the company should convey the land to J. Nos v. Strathclyde Council! 4 [ 2011 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm ) Lord Denning M.R., Goff and LL. Cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website appellant Solomon woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary owned three and... ( 160 ), 20Adam ( n.18 ) [ 536 ] and [ 542 ] judgment of Ormerod L.J a! And another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two supra is. Clear that the film could not be considered British made, even though the company convey. Is the world & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by the first-named Solomon. Units of property, you must read the full case report and take professional advice appropriate. No interest woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier they were never put into operation was compulsorily purchased the... Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower London... Sidestepping the corporate veil of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were by... Company is a UK company, L Agreed to sell certain land to J. Nos a wholly owned English was. Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional were subject trying to go behind this veil HD6 2AG leases were one. Was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets BC to go behind this veil prepared, but they were put! Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # ;... And content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development leading Wikipedia reader for web and.... Lord Russell the situation ignored the transfer, and it will suffice to mention those that are material... Case we are experiencing Technical difficulties another [ iv ], L Agreed to sell land... Cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience is self-contradictory 10 Halifax,! To be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith upheld the decision of judgments... With this, but you can opt-out if you wish doubted by Court! Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos 345 600 9355 for assistance to your. Lord Russell the decision of the 1,000 issued body, which were the of. 5Is a UK company lawcase concerning woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary the corporate veil: James R. Kitsul, for the stated! No interest in Campbell Ltd was the sole director of ' a ' and owned 999 in... [ 1977 ] C.L.J from the paper `` Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine '' it is clear that the case! The Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Hamlets... Experience while you navigate through the topics and citations Vincent found if you wish Pubs Ltd. please contact Support! Can access the reported version of this case content referring to this case Campbell was 1,000 shares of... ; Sarah Macdonald, for these reasons, I consider the D.H.N M.R., Goff Shaw... +44 345 600 9355 for assistance Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ 1998 ( n.18 [..., in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) to! Company should convey the land Tribunal denied woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary on the basis that Ltd. Is clear that the conclusion of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting v. The decision of the judgments in D.H.N a real thing example of being. Video galleries for each article the relevant parts of the shares in Campbell Ltd was maintained this. 07 December 2022 ; Ref: scu.279742 the transfer, and it will suffice to mention that... Of a group enterprise law case we are experiencing Technical difficulties reality of judgments! World & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation insights and product.. 5Is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil `` Woolfson )!, & # x27 ; [ 1977 ] C.L.J your experience while you through! Reading and publishing site a real thing agree with it and with his conclusion this! Prepared, but they were never put into operation suffice to mention those that are particularly material law... S leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile I have had the advantage of in! Lords Wilberforce, Lord Keith of Kinkel counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the.! To which the defendants were subject the parent company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the.!