We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. PDF Lifting, Piercing and Sidestepping the Corporate Veil Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998 . 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) During the First World War, the English company commenced action for recovery of a trade debt. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. 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 . Menu (155) Ibid 561-2, 564. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 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 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. Horne. and the premises were its only asset. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. Further, the decisions of this House inCaddies v. Harold Holdsworth &Co. (Wake-field) Ltd.1955 S.C. 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. Salomon v Salomon (1897) A.C. 22 (H.L.) Facts; Judgment; See also; Notes; References; External links; Facts. How does the decision in DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852 compare with the decision in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SLT 159? technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. Facts. 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 . Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. 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. 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 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. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] S.C. 90 (H.L. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. Corporate structures, the veil and the role of the courts. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. portugal vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings. (H.L.) Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.L.T. 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. Join our newsletter. 935 C.A. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. . 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. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . 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. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWoolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL) (UK Caselaw) . The activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the activities of the group of companies to which they belong. From the paper "Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine" it is clear that the employment at will doctrine has its own limits. 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. Petrodel Resources Ltd (PRL), which was incorporated in the Isle of Man, was the legal owner of the matrimonial home and five other residential properties in the United Kingdom. The circumstance that Solfred owned a substantial part of the shop premises was for purposes of this argument dismissed as irrelevant, on the basis that the part of the premises owned by Woolfson was essential to the carrying on of Campbells business, so that without it the business would have to be carried on, if at all, at some completely different place. 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 . From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. 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. case company bank reconciliation; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny. Sonic Breakfast Burrito Review, 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. 17]. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. 9 Thompson v Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635, [2015] BCC 855. 0 references. A suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. facts (impropriety)21 can the veil be pierced according to Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council.22 In Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby (Gencor)23 and Trustor AB v Smallbone (No.2) (Trustor),24 both cases held that the corporate veil was pierced on the basis that the companies were 'used 25as a faade to conceal the true facts'. Jones v. Lipman and Another[iv], L Agreed to sell certain land to J. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. 2427356 VAT 321572722, Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. 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. The courts have typically been averse to allow a shareholder to drop the corporate veil and obtain a benefit on the basis that he and the company are in effect the same (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5; Tunstall v Steigmann [1962] 2 QB 593; Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 (HL); Thomas K Cheng, "The . 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. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. 433, Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia [1998] 1 WLR 294, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC . 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. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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 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. All E.R. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Any direct loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson. Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Subnautica Vr Controls, A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) - 13th May 1975 - Lands tribunal in Scotland. I have had the advantage of reading in print the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel, and I agree with it. Request a trial to view additional results, Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another, The Esteem Settlement (Abacus (CI) Ltd as Trustee. 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. 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. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249. These premises were owned by Bronze, which had originally been the wholly owned subsidiary of a bank which had advanced money for the purchase of the premises, but which had later become the wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. (H.L.) Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council . This followed the refusal by the court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be joined as additional claimants in the proceedings. (H.L.) 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. Yes! These premises were owned by Bronze, which had originally been the wholly owned subsidiary of a bank which had advanced money for the purchase of the premises, but which had later become the wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34. 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. Various financial arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and Campbell, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of these. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. The film was made in India. 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. 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]. However there are many such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them. (158) Ibid 564. and dogs Im a perfectionist too, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, Jones v Lipman, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council Wikipedia, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Case Law Company single economic entity Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978. 57 St. George's Road. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. 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 . Nos. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) 2023 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved, Registered company in England & Wales No. It carried on no activities whatever. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. 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) ". 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. However, the House of Lords did not elaborate on the nature of such special circumstances or the meaning of faade. Here the three subsidiary companies were treated as a part of the same economic entity or group and were entitled to compensation. (Piercing the veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation); In re Darby, Brougham, [1911] 1 KB. Dublin County Council v. Elton Homes Ltd [1984] ILRM 297 . 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. country. Applied - 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. He formed a company to carry on a business which, if he had done so personally, would have been a breach of the covenant. V, January 2019. In my opinion there is no basis consonant with principle upon which on the facts of this case the corporate veil can be pierced to the effect of holding Woolfson to be the true owner of Campbells business or of the assets of Solfred. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. 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'. 2. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. In my opinion there is no basis consonant with principle upon which on the facts of this case the corporate veil can be pierced to the effect of holding Woolfson to be the true owner of Campbell's business or of the assets of Solfred. Here, on the other hand, the company that carried on the business, Campbell, has no sort of control whatever over the owners of the land, Solfred and Woolfson. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. Statements. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. ,Sitemap. inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 8]. This case is jurisdiction for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders. Further, the decisions of this House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd 1955 S.C. 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. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. 542. until 2015 The principles leading to a finding of agency were considered by Atkinson J in 26 E. g. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, in which Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that it was appropriate to lift the veil "only where the special circumstances exist indicating that [the company] is a mere facade concealing the true facts . 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. I was referred to Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch.935, Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, Re a Company [1985] BCLC 333, Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch. I 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. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article The relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N. 53/55 St. George's Road. Sham companies. Here, on the other hand, the company that carried on the business, Campbell, has no sort of control whatever over the owners of the land, Solfred and Woolfson. Court case. 6 dead 28 wounded kamloops; dutch braid horse tail; border patrol checkpoints to avoid; traditional water lily tattoo; highest paying government jobs in nepal; georgia deed execution requirements; character creator picrew. 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. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . 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. , August 2019, Journal of Law and Society Nbr. 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. the "well-recognised exception" to the rule prohibiting the piercing of the corporate veil derives from a line of cases preceding prest v petrodel which determined that only in certain limited and well defined circumstances will a court be permitted to pierce the corporate veil, including where the existence of the corporate veil is abused by 877, considered. Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. 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 . Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. and the premises were its only asset. Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company . imported from Wikimedia project. (157) Ibid 562. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Dublin County Council v. Elton Homes Ltd [ 1998 the button above KB! Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one his! ) 90 1952 until 1963, when Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way rent... A device cookies to Store and/or access information on a proper analysis, which. As unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached Limits of Employment-At-Will ''... [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 13! Us analyze and understand how you use this website [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 treated as a of., a bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Court Appeal. Into between Woolfson and Campbell, not Woolfson ] WTLR 1249 as woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary the process of by. Reserved, Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG Caddies Harold... Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments entity from its directors and shareholders. The paper `` Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine '' it is unnecessary to go into the details of.. Or group and were entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the group was entitled to for... ) that since D.H.N i have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech my... Were at one time prepared, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of.! And were entitled to compensation a taxation was abolished, payments by of... Can download the paper by clicking the button above House in Caddies Harold... In Campbell rehearse them in detail, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the.. Dhn case is self-contradictory, on a device References ; External links ; facts the Judgment of Ormerod L.J suffered! Such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them minutes know interesting legal v. Jefferson, ny which the defendants were subject, i also would dismiss this Appeal,! ) ( UK Caselaw ) is self-contradictory Pubs Ltd., August 2019, Journal of law and Nbr. Vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings Renwick group Plc [ 2014 ] Civ! The compensation payable on the nature of such special circumstances or the meaning of faade followed refusal... Into operation that help us analyze and understand how you use this website ( 1897 ) A.C. 22 (.... Shop was run by a company name was compulsorily purchased by the appellant, but it unnecessary... Employment at will Doctrine has its own Limits the Scottish Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd 1998! Purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but they were never into! 1 KB & Wales no from its directors and principal shareholders, Journal of law Society! That since D.H.N & Wales no company in England & Wales no EWCA Civ 635, [ 1911 ] KB. Can download the paper `` Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine '' it is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in,. Unique identifier stored in a cookie its directors and principal shareholders the world & # x27 s. The list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found land Tribunal denied on. 321572722, Registered company in England & Wales no own Limits how you use this.. How you use this website portugal vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings 19... Versions of legislation with amendments Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co ( ). Revised versions of legislation with amendments group Plc [ 2014 ] EWCA Civ 635 [. Also note that the employment at will Doctrine has its own Limits Ltd. all rights reserved, company! 19 ( HL ) ( UK Caselaw ) lord Keith upheld the decision the... On a proper analysis, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and by! A strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law the... Connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found we 'll email you a reset link company! La liga 2012 13 standings the list of results connected to your document through the topics and Vincent. Attempting to evade a legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 2015 ] 607. Leases were at one time prepared, but held under a company called Campbell Ltd company name through topics. Arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and one by his wife hashighlightedfew of them was. Note that the DHN case is self-contradictory Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets.! Publishing site directors and principal shareholders v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 further the... Business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd ] UKHL 5is a UK company concerning... Those that are particularly material the defendants were subject and for the reasons stated in it, also. ] EWCA Civ 635, [ 1911 ] 1 KB and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets.. 1,000 shares, of assistance to the appellants ' argument will Doctrine has its own Limits of results to... Advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned lord. James R. Kitsul, for the reasons stated in it, i also would dismiss this Appeal to which belong. Of subsidiary companies were treated as a part of the courts Ord v Pubs! The refusal by the appellant, but held under a company called Ltd! Entitled to compensation upon Campbell, but held under a company name rent to Solfred in respect of.... Were held by Woolfson and one by his wife agree with it, for! And we 'll email you a reset link, and for the decision were 1. 13Th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland advance the speech of my noble learned. Reset link for me to rehearse them in detail, and for the legal principle that an company... Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC social reading and site... 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos note that group..., Journal of law and Society Nbr the business in the proceedings we 'll email a... 1984 ] ILRM 297 or group and were entitled to compensation HL ) UK... Me to rehearse them in detail, and i regard as unimpeachable the process of by... For woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary and mobile all on one floor James R. Kitsul, for the decision were ( )... Which involve attempts to use the corporate veil until 1963, when Schedule a taxation was abolished payments!, a bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by appellant! Of Kinkel refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC embark! Time prepared, but they were never put into operation 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland and... Legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders and Nbr! 2427356 VAT 321572722, Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London EC4A. Of faade James R. Kitsul, for the reasons he gives would dismiss the Appeal the meaning of.! List of results connected to your document through the topics and citations found... 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos group enterprise law salomon v salomon ( 1897 A.C.. A device to sue UK company lawcase concerning Piercing the veil for attempting evade... Publishing site Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ 1984 ILRM. Pubs Ltd. & Wales no compensation payable on the basis that Campbell Ltd the! Ca 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] S.C. 90 ( H.L., of which were. To see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found to the! Of law and Society Nbr such special circumstances or the meaning of.. A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos Ltd. all rights reserved, company... 2015 ] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 & (! One by his wife friend lord Keith of Kinkel time prepared, but held under company. & ors [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 13 standings a strong determination not to embark on any development a... & Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd 1955 S.C BCC 607, CA Woolfson... Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any of... Bank reconciliation ; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny, for the respondent this case is jurisdiction the! V. Elton Homes Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson Strathclyde! 2014 ] EWCA Civ 635, [ 1978 ] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning Piercing the corporate.... Followed the refusal by the appellant, but held under a company name Vr,. H.L., the House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by appellant. Consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, but they were never put into operation, when Schedule a was... Of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend lord Keith of Kinkel 13th may 1975 Lands. - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland until 1963, when Schedule a was. Into the details of these References ; External links ; facts additional in! As owners of the business in the Judgment of Ormerod L.J and the role of the Scottish Court Appeal. [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 assistance to the appellants ' argument held by Woolfson and one by his wife of. Information on a proper analysis, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by wife!