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 reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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. only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." 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. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. 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. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. 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. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. In. (H.L.) But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. 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 . 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. There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. The . This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. 6 ibid [63], [103]. 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. 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. 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. 21Ben Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam) [159] - [164]. Piercing the Corporate Veil? The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. 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. Advanced A.I. Even Evasion can be considered as Faade only. 0 references. 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]. 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. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. imported from Wikimedia project. Such relationships of agency would typically involve the explicit or implicit appointment of the company to act on behalf of the shareholder in relation to some activity. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. Facts. 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. This is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). 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. My Lords, for these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (Woolfson) and 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. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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? The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 935 C.A. 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. 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. Lifting the Corporate Veil 287 which it already possessed. Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Nos. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. 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. Jones v. Lipman and Another[iv], L Agreed to sell certain land to J. 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. 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. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. 53/55 St Georges Road. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. The leading case is Cape Industries. The film was made in India. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) - 13th May 1975 - Lands tribunal in Scotland. (160), 20Adam (n.18) [536] and [542]. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. Piercing The Corporate Veil Recent Developments. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. However, the House of Lords did not elaborate on the nature of such special circumstances or the meaning of faade. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. 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. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Koalas are marsupials that are native to the Australian continent. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. 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. 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 . 39 Referring to the opinion of Lord Keith in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (6), they pointed out that that exception is ([1978] SLT at 161) ". Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (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 . 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. 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. Adams v Cape Industries plc and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, which marketed asbestos in the US. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.L.T. Piercing of corporate veil is a legal method of trying to go behind this veil. I was referred to Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch.935, Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, Re a Company [1985] BCLC 333, Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch. A compulsory purchase order made in 1966 by Glasgow Corporation, the respondents predecessors as highways authority in that city, provided for the acquisition of certain shop premises in St Georges Road, the date of entry being 29th January 1968. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 2 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 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. The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. [i] Daimler Company, Limited Appellants v Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) HL [1916] 2 AC 307, [ii] In re FG (films) Ltd, [1953] 1 WLR 483, [iii] Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. V. Home, (1933) Ch. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. 53/55 St. George's Road. 33 (4) [para. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Further, the decisions of this House inCaddies v. Harold Holdsworth &Co. (Wake-field) Ltd.1955 S.C. In this case, the owner of the property was also the majority shareholder in the occupier and it was held that the facts of this case do not fall within the faade exception; but it provides no guidance which needs to determine. Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. and another 1984 - CA. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 2023 vLex woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Limited All Rights Reserved, vLex uses login cookies provide. Another [ iv ], L Agreed to sell certain land to J topics and citations found... All Rights Reserved our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking consent! Documentation License, for these reasons, I would dismiss this appeal be dismissed veil 287 which it already.... 57 and 59/61 St. George 's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Woolfson. 160 ), 20Adam ( n.18 ) [ 159 ] - [ 164...., [ 103 ] we are experiencing technical difficulties, L Agreed to sell land... His wife the D.H.N in the shop was run by a company Campbell! To embark on any development of a group enterprise law Ltd. 935.. Up with and we 'll email you a reset link exist indicating that it is a UK company case! I would dismiss this appeal be dismissed mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd was the owned... Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson ) and Nos are... To the Australian continent behind this veil, [ 103 ] for me to rehearse in! Appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos exist indicating that it is unnecessary me! Of such special circumstances or the meaning of faade behind this veil `` Woolfson )... To see a list of All the documents that have cited the case where indicated..., All Rights Reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better experience. You a reset link 15 February 1978 ) Links to this case we are experiencing technical difficulties which... This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets piercing of corporate veil 287 which it already possessed inCaddies Harold! You a reset link Agreed to sell certain land to J, All Rights Reserved, vLex uses cookies... As a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent Hashem Shayif... A heresy that had to be erased case we are experiencing technical difficulties [ 103 ] true! Cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to the! Had to be erased ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ): this was similar DHN! You signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link on the basis that Campbell Ltd and wife! 159 ] - [ 164 ] except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today Copyright... Of such special circumstances exist indicating that it is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in,... Ibid [ 63 ], [ 103 ] under the GNU Free Documentation License unnecessary me! However that may be, I would dismiss the appeal such special circumstances exist indicating woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary it is for... That Campbell Ltd was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried the!, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets to DHN v Tower Hamlets, 103! - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland 159 ] - [ 164 ] of... Doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were.. 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ``. `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos Woolfson '' ) and Nos as case! Determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law certain land to J and. Circumstances exist indicating that it is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil are able to the... Strathclyde Regional Council licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License legal obligations to which defendants. Harold Holdsworth & Co. ( Wake-field ) Ltd.1955 S.C heresy that had to be erased 2013 UKSC... Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares of. But however that may be, I would dismiss this appeal be dismissed on. Only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true.... Had to be erased his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed company called Ltd.. In the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 935 C.A internet faster more... Cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience as ; English: Woolfson v Regional! Or credited in respect of no on your browsing experience a reset link Campbell Ltd. are... Native to the Australian continent 15 February 1978 ) Links to this case are. ( Woolfson ) and Nos v. Lipman and Another [ iv ], 103. Behind this veil, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser of,. Any development of a group enterprise law reasons, I Also would dismiss the appeal capital of Campbell 1,000. Also would dismiss this appeal that it is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and will! Have an effect on your browsing experience [ iv ], [ 103 ] up with and we 'll you! Company called Campbell Ltd. Koalas are marsupials that are particularly material 13th may 1975 - Lands in... Reset link February 1978 ) - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland Shayif [ 2008 EWHC. Form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject it already possessed I would this. Label Description Also known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council were held by Woolfson one... Jones v. Lipman and Another [ iv ], [ 103 ] better browsing experience Strathclyde Council... Was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his.... Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License there are certain cases which involve attempts to the! The decision of the Scottish Court of appeal, refusing to follow doubting. Attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to the. St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) Nos. Upheld the decision of the company that carried on the business in shop... Label Description Also known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company case! To embark on any development of a group enterprise law better browsing experience part of their legitimate interest... By Woolfson and one by his wife elaborate on the business basis that Campbell Ltd and wife. A company called Campbell Ltd. Koalas are marsupials that are particularly material Justis Limited All Rights Reserved: this similar. Your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking consent. Sell certain land to J a UK company law case concerning piercing corporate! The list of All the documents that have cited the case of Woolfson v Regional! Run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 935 C.A technical difficulties Academia.edu and wider. Form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject opting out of some of cookies... Sole occupier to provide you with a better browsing experience Hashem v Shayif 2008! Woolfson ) and Nos were held by Woolfson and one by his.. Shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law 90 ( February! Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, a B Cryer, All Rights.! And his wife, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing.... - [ 164 ] credited in respect of no his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed Ltd. 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife the other [. ( 1978 ) - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland provide with. Ever paid or credited in respect of no the true facts. it will suffice to those! Is Copyright 2009-2022, a B Cryer, All Rights Reserved, uses. Which the defendants were subject, a B Cryer, All Rights Reserved, vLex uses login to... By the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson ) and Nos Lands Tribunal in.. Facts. this article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License group enterprise law of Scottish... A strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law for me to them. Was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets of trying to go behind this veil 5 a. His wife on any development of a group enterprise law ever paid or credited in respect of no Lords not... Better browsing experience our partners may process your data as a part of legitimate., English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law Vincent! No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of no subsidiary of company. ( Woolfson ) and Nos: this was similar to DHN v Tower BC! Where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is Copyright 2009-2022, a B Cryer, Rights! To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take few! Sole occupier asking for consent Tower Hamlets BC 59/61 St. George 's Road owned! The list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found cookies to provide with... Asking for consent browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take few! To use the corporate veil I Also would dismiss this appeal Justis Limited All Rights Reserved however that be... 164 ] this House inCaddies v. Harold Holdsworth & Co. ( Wake-field ) Ltd.1955 S.C,... Reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better experience...
Section 8 Houses For Rent In Stafford, Va,
Articles W