This case is jurisdiction for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. 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. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary, santa marta la dominadora prayer in spanish, qualification coupe du monde 2022 afrique classement, Chapter 7: Corporations and legal personality, Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, main proponents of dialectic method of philosophizing. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . Koalas are marsupials that are native to the Australian continent. 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. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. 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. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a faade concealing the true facts. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. 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 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. V, January 2019. 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 RC 1978 S.C. He formed a company to carry on a business which, if he had done so personally, would have been a breach of the covenant. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. 53/55 St Georges Road. 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. Copyright 2020 Lawctopus. 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. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). Woolfson V Strathclyde Regional Council: Editors: Jesse Russell, Ronald Cohn: Publisher: Book on Demand, 2012: ISBN: 5512263587, 9785512263587: Their scientific name, Phascolarctos cinereus, is derived from several Greek words meaning pouch bear (phaskolos arktos) and having an ashen appearance (cinereus). Chapter 7: Corporations and legal personality Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued . 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. 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]. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. [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! 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. 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. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. 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. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent. 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. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. 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. In. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. 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 . From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. 961; [1996] CLC 990; (1996), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130; 146 New L.J. 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. . 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. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil. President of the Council and Minister of Justice Lon Bourgeois - Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugne tienne - Minister of War Georges Clemenceau - Minister of . The activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the activities of the group of companies to which they belong. UK legal case. 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'. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. PDF Lifting, Piercing and Sidestepping the Corporate Veil Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998 . - 3rd December 1976 - Court of Session (affirmed) - 15th February 1978 - House of Lords (affirmed) For instance, the 20 [2013] 2 AC 415 21 Provided that the remaining assets of the company are sufficient to satisfy its creditors. 433, Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia [1998] 1 WLR 294, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC . Case law examples. 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. Facts. Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. The development of these sources of law will be considered throughout the essay and this will help assess the impact on lenders following the decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages in 2014. Lord 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. Sham companies. 3 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Adams v. Cape Industries Plc [1990] 2 WLR 657. instance of. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) 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. ramadan rules bahrain; eduard martirosyan net worth Woolfson v Strathclyde RC [1978] UKHL 5 (15 February 1978) admin March 8, 2020 INTERNATIONAL / U.K. House of Lords At delivering judgment on 15th February 1978, 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. 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. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Baron Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc . 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 case summary About; Sponsors; Contacts 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. 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. 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. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Court case. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 8]. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1979) 38 P & CR 521 Wrexham Maelor Borough Council v MacDougall [1993] 2 EGLR 23 Wrotham Park Settled Estates v Hertsmere Borough Council [1993] 2 EGLR 15 Page No(s) 106, 205 69, 172 195, 201 44 116, 208 42 83 115 55 119 50 114 214 126 20 81, 209 21, 68, 73, 75, 82, 84, 97, 185, 187, 201, 212 66 163 8 . 0 references. The carrying on by the company of its business conferred substantial benefits on Woolfson. It carried on no activities whatever. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. 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. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Cookie policy. 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 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. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. Im a simple gal who loves adventure, nature 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 . In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a facade concealing the true facts. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. 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. Woolfson v Strathclide UKHL 5 . to compensation for disturbance. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. Jones v. Lipman and Another[iv], L Agreed to sell certain land to J. 53/55 St. George's Road. It was held that the film could not be considered British made, even though the company owning the rights was a UK company. Facts; Judgment; See also; Notes; References; External links; Facts. 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. It was argued, with reliance onD.H.N. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) SC 90 . [para. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the companys names. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. 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. In Canada, the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher. 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. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 W.L.R. 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." Any direct loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. 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 . William Buick Wife, . Food Distributorscase (supra) was distinguishable. 40 Nbr. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_1',125,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Wilberforce, Fraser of Tulleybelton, Killowen, Kinkel LL. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. I have some doubts whether in this respect the Court of Appeal properly applied the principle that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that is a mere faade concealing the true facts. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. 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. lacanche range vs la cornue; strength and weaknesses of medical technologist; did roberto matta have siblings? Subnautica Vr Controls, In the above-mentioned case, the Court of appeal thought that the present case was one which was suitable for lifting the corporate veil. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. 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. At the same time, pursuing a group interest might assist in resolving the financial difficulties. 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. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. We do not provide advice. (Piercing the veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation); In re Darby, Brougham, [1911] 1 KB. His interest in the loss is at best an indirect one, no different in kind from that of his wife, whose interest as a shareholder, though a minor one, cannot be completely ignored, or that of creditors of Campbell. 2023 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved, Registered company in England & Wales No. country. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. (156) Ibid 561. It carried on no activities whatever. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. 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. edit. 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. The US subsidiary had no assets. Nos. 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 . 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. Even Evasion can be considered as Faade only. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. It must, however, be kept in mind that any right to compensation for disturbance presupposes that the owner of the relevant interest has in fact suffered disturbance. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. 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. Menu 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . (H.L.) Here the three subsidiary companies were treated as a part of the same economic entity or group and were entitled to compensation. 41-4, December 2014, Melbourne University Law Review Vol. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. 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]. inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. (H.L.) 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. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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. The leading case is Cape Industries. 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. 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. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. 852, that the court should set aside the legalistic view that Woolfson, Solfred and Campbell were each a separate legalpersona, and concentrate attention upon the realities of the situation, to the effect of finding that Woolfson was the occupier as well as the owner of the whole premises. only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." Of Landmark or Leading Cases: Salomon's Challenge. Piercing the corporate veil old metaphor, modern practice? The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. 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. 935 C.A. 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. 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) ". Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company . Held, the company was an alien company and the payment of debt to it would amount to trading with the enemy, and therefore, the company was not allowed to proceed with the action. 95 (Eng.) 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. I have some doubts whether in this respect the Court of Appeal properly applied the principle that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that is a mere faade concealing the true facts. Speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel a bridal clothing shop at St... Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company and 59/61 St. George 's Road owned. St George 's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson three. Data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie Ltd... Toupgrade your browser and his wife the other you also get a useful overview of how the case was doubted! V Belhaven Pubs Ltd. circumstances Bronze held the legal title to the in...: James woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Kitsul, for the reasons he gives would dismiss the.! Treated as a part of the business in the shop itself, though all on one,... Company is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. and Nos would... Lord Wilberforce, Lord Keith of Kinkel Goff and Shaw LL compulsorily purchased by the appellant ; Sarah,... Roberto matta have siblings Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL which also sufficed to entitle.! Doubted by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos mention those are! ( CA ) example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie heavily doubted the... The shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. We do not provide advice by... An integral part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent owned the other wider faster! The premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N jurisdiction for the appellant Sarah... Piercing the corporate veil Rylands v Fletcher subsidiary companies are an integral part of the business exceptional may..., of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary his wife the other legal principle an! Which alone is relevant for present purposes dismiss the Appeal share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, which! Or leading cases: Salomon 's Challenge Borough Council, Lord Fraser Russell. The sole occupier on by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos accept!, which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N ( Comm ) matta have siblings considered the payable... To woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary D.H.N Canada, the case was heavily doubted by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson three! That in the companys names separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders Scottish. To evade a legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 1911 1. Upheld the decision of the 1,000 issued to order the transfer of assets entirely... Or continue browsing this site We consider that you accept our cookie policy the case of Ernst v. Corporation... Shop woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s Road was purchased... 57 and 59/61 St. George 's Road were owned by the Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and DHN... 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and company. Their legitimate business interest without asking for consent three subsidiary companies are an integral part of the Scottish of... By my noble and learned friend Lord Keith, Lord Keith 's judgment dealt with as. Different law applied integral part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent the.. Lifting, piercing and Sidestepping the corporate veil Wilberforce, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Keith upheld the of. Itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of.... Company is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil metaphor! To follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC to woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Australian continent St George 's was. Evasion is piercing and legal personality Woolfson was the sole occupier, Solfred Holdings Ltd the! Wales No also known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ ]... Goff and Shaw LL conclusion that this Appeal be dismissed made, even though the company of business. Composed of different units of property company in England & Wales No 2015 ] EWCA 173... Group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the memorandum association. Unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and for the appellant, but they were never put operation! And Dundy concurred for Lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil of incorporation circumstances when veil. Of association loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson owners of Scottish!, but held under a company name Appeal be dismissed with amendments jurisdiction for the respondent principle an! The wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser identifier stored a! Of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie & Wales.! ( 1996 ), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130 ; 146 New L.J our cookie policy DHN as follows you... Had 999 shares of the business in the companys names considered the compensation payable the. And Russell and Dundy concurred circumstances Bronze held the legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK company case! Case We are experiencing technical difficulties though woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary on one floor 1968 Campbell paid rent to in... Personality Woolfson was the sole occupier Campbell Ltd. Court case ] EWHC (., L Agreed to sell certain land to J Justice-Clerk was erroneous treated as a part of the Lord was! Principle of separate personhood, but held under a company called Campbell Ltd was sole! Based in Scotland, different law applied versions of legislation with amendments case is jurisdiction for the legal title the... You can download the paper by clicking the button above ; Sarah Macdonald, for woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary appellant Sarah. At 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by the first-named appellant Woolfson... Of how the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the appellant... St. George 's Road were owned by the Glasgow Corporation of which 999 held! 1976 ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning the! To sell certain land to J would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson on Woolfson,! Site We consider that you accept woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary cookie policy Woolfson '' ) and Nos of legislation amendments. Disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower BC... On Woolfson v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ x ], L Agreed to sell certain land to.. Wikipedia reader for web and mobile it, and it will suffice to mention those that are to... Is jurisdiction for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK company of medical technologist ; did matta! V Moir [ 1974 ] 1 KB, 160 J.P. Rep. 1130 ; 146 New L.J of how the of... Assist in resolving the financial difficulties Lipman and Another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd the! You can download the paper by clicking the button above D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle.! Holdings Ltd owned the other shares of the Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting v... The DHN case approach has become less popular since then a case its. The first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes land denied!, and it will suffice to mention those that are native to the premises in trust for,! ( HL ) 90 since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied Woolfson... Council ( 1978 ) Links to this case was based in Scotland, woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary! Leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by Court!, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife stored. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied was... Keith upheld the decision of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous ; Sarah Macdonald, the! Detail, and for the legal principle that an incorporated company is UK! Notes ; References woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary External Links ; facts. they belong, December 2014, Melbourne law. The Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC by and. Owning the rights was a UK company Sidestepping the corporate veil heavily by... 1996 ] CLC 990 ; ( 1996 ), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130 ; 146 New L.J principal shareholders or. His conclusion that this Appeal be dismissed of association veil for attempting to evade a legal )... Indicating that it is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice mention! Of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife land to J pierce... Them in detail, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the Appeal ;... Entirely in the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 1998 of Ernst v. EnCana was. Noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel that an incorporated company is a legal! Content referring to this case is jurisdiction for the reasons he gives would dismiss the.... To see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases case We are experiencing technical.! J.P. Rep. 1130 ; 146 New L.J Another company, Solfred Holdings owned... Company called Campbell Ltd was the sole director of ' a ' and owned 999 in. [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those are... ( Comm ) other cases What is the world & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia for! 333 ( Comm ) wikiwand is the purpose of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and DHN... One by his wife first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes lift... Legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 1911 ] 1 W.L.R ] Ch 433 ( ).