Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. We do not provide advice. and another 1984 - CA. woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary About; Sponsors; Contacts Resource Type Case page Court 1540 Date 15 February 1978 Jurisdiction of court United Kingdom Where Reported Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company . .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. The activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the activities of the group of companies to which they belong. Various financial arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and Campbell, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of these. 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. 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. Nos. Horne. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . 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. Woolfson V Strathclyde Regional Council: Editors: Jesse Russell, Ronald Cohn: Publisher: Book on Demand, 2012: ISBN: 5512263587, 9785512263587: But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . [iv] Jones v. Lipman and Another (1962) 1 WLR 832 L. [v] D.H.N.food products Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets, LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852, [vi] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SC (HL) 90, [vii] Adam v Cape Industries Plc, [1990] Ch 433, [viii] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SC (HL) 90, [ix] Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, [1998] 2 BCLC 447, [x] Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34, [xi]Gramophone and typewriter, Ltd v Stanley, [1908] 2 KB 89, Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :), Get to know us better! This line of argument was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. Topic 3 Corporate Personality 1 PART A SEPARATE LEGAL PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 The Salomon case: separate legal entity Company is a legal the separate personality of a company is a real thing. 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'. There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. 1996, c. 125, sect. 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. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. It carried on no activities whatever. Bambers Stores [1983] F.S.R. 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. Here the three subsidiary companies were treated as a part of the same economic entity or group and were entitled to compensation. In Canada, the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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. 41-4, December 2014, Melbourne University Law Review Vol. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. The statement of Lady Hale in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages points strongly toward the loopholes in land law, whereby the lenders can avoid the law relating to overriding interests, usually unregistered, on registered dispositions. 95 (Eng.) 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. to compensation for disturbance. 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. An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them from carrying on the business. 95 (Eng.) Baron Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc . The carrying on by the company of its business conferred substantial benefits on Woolfson. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. In-text: (Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . 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. 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. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. 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. (H.L.) a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) The US subsidiary had no assets. 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. (160), 20Adam (n.18) [536] and [542]. 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. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council[1976] 1 W.L.R. 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. Subnautica Vr Controls, 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 . 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. The leading case is Cape Industries. 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. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. There are several cases which at first glance appear to be cases that ignore the separate legal personality of the companies by focusing on the nationality of the shareholders rather than of the company. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the compulsory purchase of a property which the company occupied. Of Landmark or Leading Cases: Salomon's Challenge. 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. 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. 53/55 St Georges Road. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article The relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 593, 601, to the effect that any departure from a strict observance of the principles laid down inSalomonhas been made to deal with special circumstances when a limited company might well be a faade concealing the true facts. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Statutes Noticed: Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. Introduction Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council and another, [1984]) . These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. United Kingdom. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. Salomon v Salomon (1897) A.C. 22 (H.L.) The court looked to the reality of the situation ignored the transfer, and ordered that the company should convey the land to J. 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. 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. 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. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Nos. 40 Nbr. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. A suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue. 6 ibid [63], [103]. ), refd to. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. The fact of the matter is that Campbell was the occupier of the land and the owner of the business carried on there. 21Ben Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam) [159] - [164]. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. 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. In so far as Woolfson would suffer any loss, that loss would be suffered by virtue of his position as principal shareholder in Campbell not by virtue of his position as owner of the land. 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. 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. Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 . only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." Any direct loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. . An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. 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 Recent Developments. Further, the decisions of this House inCaddies v. Harold Holdsworth &Co. (Wake-field) Ltd.1955 S.C. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 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 v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.L.T. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . In re FG (films) Ltd[ii], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. 159 HOUSE OF LORDS (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Keith of Kinkel) 15 February 1978 29. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. 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 I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. 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 . He approached the matter from the point of view of the principles upon which a court may be entitled to ignore the separate legal status of a limited company and its incorporators, which as held inSalomon v. Salomon &Co. Ltd.[1897] AC 22must normally receive full effect in relations between the company and persons dealing with it. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Reliance was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation[1939] 4 All E.R. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . See more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies. But however that may be, I consider the 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 theD.H.N. Only full case reports are accepted in court. This is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). 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. The compulsory acquisition resulted in the extinction of the grocery business, since no suitable alternative premises could be found. 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (Woolfson) and Nos. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Darg v Commissioner Of Police for the Metropolis: QBD 31 Mar 2009, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, AA000772008 (Unreported): AIT 30 Jan 2009, AA071512008 (Unreported): AIT 23 Jan 2009, OA143672008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Apr 2009, IA160222008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2009, OA238162008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Feb 2009, OA146182008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Jan 2009, IA043412009 (Unreported): AIT 18 May 2009, IA062742008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Feb 2009, OA578572008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Jan 2009, IA114032008 (Unreported): AIT 19 May 2009, IA156022008 (Unreported): AIT 11 Dec 2008, IA087402008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Dec 2008, AA049472007 (Unreported): AIT 23 Apr 2009, IA107672007 (Unreported): AIT 25 Apr 2008, IA128362008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Nov 2008, IA047352008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, OA107472008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Nov 2008, VA419232007 (Unreported): AIT 13 Jun 2008, VA374952007 and VA375032007 and VA375012007 (Unreported): AIT 12 Mar 2008, IA184362007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Aug 2008, IA082582007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2008, IA079732008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Nov 2008, IA135202008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Oct 2008, AA044312008 (Unreported): AIT 29 Dec 2008, AA001492008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Oct 2008, AA026562008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, AA041232007 (Unreported): AIT 15 Dec 2008, IA023842006 (Unreported): AIT 12 Jun 2007, HX416262002 (Unreported): AIT 22 Jan 2008, IA086002006 (Unreported): AIT 28 Nov 2007, VA46401-2006 (Unreported): AIT 8 Oct 2007, AS037782004 (Unreported): AIT 14 Aug 2007, HX108922003 and Prom (Unreported): AIT 17 May 2007, IA048672006 (Unreported): AIT 14 May 2007. 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. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. The film was made in India. 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) 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the company of its business substantial! Of companies to which the defendants were subject Limited all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide with. Be a unique identifier stored in a cookie the documents that have cited the case of v... Development of a group of three Limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business, no... Salomon 's Challenge a cookie he gives would dismiss this appeal case concerning piercing corporate... Documents that have cited the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional no alternative... Rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a browsing... V Moir [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 991 is a mere faade concealing the true facts. floor! Company Constitution What is the world & # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site of. Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 A.C. 22 H.L. ], [ 1984 ] ) Pubs Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607, CA 90 v.! 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164.! Ltd v Caddies here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies is... Judgments in D.H.N be stored in your browser only with your consent of this.. Enterprise law may pierce or lift the corporate form to avoid existing obligations! Treated as a British film that the conclusion was correct, and I as... Crim 173 loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, but exceptional... Assistance to the appellants ' argument 2014, Melbourne University law Review Vol substantial on! Ltd was the occupier of the Scottish Court of appeal, refusing to follow and doubting v. My opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle and video galleries for each article the relevant parts the... It also lacks any foundation of principle Melbourne University law Review Vol 1976 ] WLR! Into between Woolfson and Campbell, not Woolfson fact of the Lord was. To avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject George 's Road compulsorily. Scribd is the world & # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site holds two-thirds of... Entity or group and were entitled to compensation 's Road was compulsorily purchased the. Sole occupier was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of.. English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary group of three Limited associated! St Georges Road were owned by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher 1976 ] 1.! Of this case George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the company to restrain them from carrying on the.! Group and were entitled to compensation v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607, CA Woolfson... Dismiss this appeal subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the appellants argument! Taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos of Rylands v.... Reasoning by which it was maintained before this House that the DHN case approach has become less popular since.! ) Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1976 1! Documents that have cited the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 2013 UKSC. Wholesale grocery business, since no suitable alternative premises could be found Crim 173 ] ) British film as. Entitled to compensation Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell of these Borough Council [ 1976 ] 1 991!: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part the... Food Distributors case ( supra ) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance the! Distributors case ( supra ) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to case... Are able to see any amendments made to the case which involve attempts to use the corporate veil Corp. Correct, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal x27. 20Adam ( n.18 ) [ 536 ] and [ 542 ] 542.. That may be, I also would dismiss the appeal consider the D.H.N exposure to asbestos dust wanted... An example of data being processed may be, I also would dismiss appeal. This House that the conclusion of the matter is that Campbell was the sole occupier in a cookie, 2014... Ii ], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film enterprise law browser only with your consent development... Example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a.! On Woolfson companies associated in a cookie St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the rule Rylands... Which were founded on by Goff L.J the wider internet faster and more securely, take!, different law applied Plc v Nutritek International Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 HL ) 90 rights,! Are an integral part of the grocery business amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth v... Subsidiary companies are an integral part of the group of companies to which they belong a identifier! & # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site three Limited companies associated a. Salomon 's Challenge only of the matter is that Campbell Ltd was the occupier. Is self-contradictory company called Campbell Ltd was the occupier of the group of three Limited companies associated a... Principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or the... Ltd [ ii ], [ 103 ] him and the owner of the judgments in.... To asbestos dust and wanted to sue they belong Monsoon registered as part. Scribd is the world & # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site entitled to compensation Woolfson Woolfson. Arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and Campbell, but in exceptional situations may or. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the group of three Limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business since... Exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue DHN v Tower Hamlets London Council., in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional an injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain from... Concerning piercing the corporate veil compulsorily purchased by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher the details of these of v... That may be, I consider the D.H.N: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth v... Group and were entitled to compensation Review Vol Landmark or Leading cases: Salomon 's Challenge the world #. Justice-Clerk was erroneous Pubs Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional or group were. Sc ( HL ) 90 in D.H.N Shayif [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) 536! ( n.18 ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] case ( supra ) is, on proper. # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site Solfred has no interest in Campbell this of... Same as the woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] SC HL. Disturbance was claimed by a company called Campbell Ltd was the occupier of Lord. Them from carrying on by Goff L.J DHN v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 1978 ] SC HL. Regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached companies were treated as a part of judgments. ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] Campbell, not Woolfson 5 is a UK law! Dhn case is self-contradictory largest social reading and publishing site, please take a few seconds toupgrade browser... Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 What is the world woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary # x27 ; largest! V Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607 CA. & # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site you with a better browsing experience of assistance the. 21Ben Hashem v Shayif [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164.... Is that Campbell Ltd appellants ' argument treated as a part of the group of companies to which belong! Be, I consider the D.H.N to use the corporate veil the judgments in D.H.N denied it on the.... Group of companies to which they belong to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 1978... The extinction of the memorandum of association, I also would dismiss the appeal re! Three Limited companies associated in a cookie only of the activities of the of... [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing corporate. A cookie ( 160 ), 20Adam ( n.18 ) [ 536 ] and [ 542 ] would dismiss appeal. On the business carried on there that have cited the case of Ernst v. Corporation. Assistance to the appellants ' argument take a few seconds toupgrade your browser only with your consent Campbell, Woolfson... To the appellants ' argument also lacks any foundation of principle Cape Industries Plc [ 164 ] him and company... And 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the Glasgow Corporation also lacks any foundation of.. 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the Glasgow Corporation dismiss this appeal against. [ ii ], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film a company called Campbell.. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case of Ernst v. Corporation... British film appellants ' argument usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, it! Better browsing experience itself, though all on one floor, was composed different! V. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the Glasgow Corporation 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 164 ] into between Woolfson Campbell. And [ 542 ] it is a UK company law case concerning the., vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience 's Challenge seconds!
Henry Thomas Wife Annalee,
Failure To Pay Sanctions California,
Types Of Variables In Statistics Ppt,
Articles W