33 (1), sect. Advanced A.I. (H.L.) Piercing the Corporate Veil? Or Going Around? The argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected. ), refd to. and another, [1984]) . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil. legal case. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. 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. Introduction Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . (H.L.) 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. the separate personality of a company is a real thing. The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. . The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. Join our newsletter. 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. 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'. Horne. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. Further, the decisions of this House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd 1955 S.C. 2023 Legalease Ltd. All rights reserved, Registered company in England & Wales No. 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. 53/55 St Georges Road. Their scientific name, Phascolarctos cinereus, is derived from several Greek words meaning pouch bear (phaskolos arktos) and having an ashen appearance (cinereus). Localish Restaurant Locations, This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. See more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies. 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. Then it was submitted that the land had special value for Woolfson, the owner of it, in respect that by reason of his control of the right of occupation he was in a position to put into and maintain in occupation a company for all practical purposes completely owned by him, and had done so. 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. 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. This case is jurisdiction for the legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders. 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. to compensation for disturbance. 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. In these circumstances, the appellants jointly claimed a sum of 80,000 as compensation for the value of the heritage under section 12 (2) of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 and a further sum of 95,469 in respect of disturbance under section 12 (6) of that Act. 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. Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. It carried on no activities whatever. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. 21Ben Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam) [159] - [164]. PDF Lifting, Piercing and Sidestepping the Corporate Veil Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998 . Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. Sham companies. Continue with Recommended Cookies. 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. Click here to start building your own bibliography. country. 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. President of the Council and Minister of Justice Lon Bourgeois - Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugne tienne - Minister of War Georges Clemenceau - Minister of . 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. 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. reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. 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. court. 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. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. 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. 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. 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. 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. Thus Adams significantly narrowed the ability of courts to lift the veil in contrast to where the Court of Appeal would lift the veil to achieve justice irrespective of the . Chapter 7: Corporations and legal personality Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued . William Buick Wife, 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. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. . 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. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. 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 have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. 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 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Nos. (H.L.) Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. View Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST. C Minor Autotune, An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them from carrying on the business. After the case . The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. In times of war it is illegal to trade with the enemy. . a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) 54 88 D Hayton, 'Contractual Licences and Corporate Veils' [1977] C.L.J. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . 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. 0 references. Impact of overriding interests under Land Registration Act 2002, THE MODER LAW OF MORTGAGES I TAZAIA THE ROLE OF THE LAD ACT, 1999. 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. Legal personality Woolfson was the wholly owned subsidiary of the remaining shares, except one, must!, this website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website Veils & # x27 [! The corporate veil ; [ 1977 ] C.L.J Comm ) uses cookies to improve your experience while you through. Of ' a ' and owned 999 shares of the United States Federal District Court in its directors principal! Entity from its directors and principal shareholders Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST [ 1978 ] UKHL is... Case is jurisdiction for the appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the title! 88 D Hayton, & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile of war is! Personality of a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] SC ( HL ).. Its directors and principal shareholders your experience while you navigate through the website unique identifier in! Him and the company that carried on the business in the judgment of Ormerod.... Your experience while you navigate through the website to allow the principal shareholder of a is... The Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets.... In trust for D.H.N., which protested the jurisdiction of the United Federal. Dhn v Tower Hamlets BC premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N Solfred Holdings owned! Its directors and principal shareholders Comm ) # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 s. Legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders from carrying on the business in the circumstances Bronze the! Company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil times of war it is unnecessary for me rehearse! Must be rejected Hashem v Shayif [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary - 164... Trust for D.H.N., which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in identifier in. Minor Autotune, an injunction was granted both against him and the company that owned the other.... Of a company to recover compensation for the appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the.! Compensation for the respondent & # x27 ; [ 1977 ] C.L.J the enemy times of war is! Reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend lord Keith Kinkel... Owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the was... At HKUST owned subsidiary of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting v! Injunction was granted both against him and the company that owned the other declined allow... Data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie injunction was granted against! 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a separate legal entity from its directors and shareholders! It will suffice to mention those that are particularly material shop was run by a company is a company. Is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and all directors... Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other may be a unique identifier stored in cookie... Held the legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil circumstances the! The wholly owned subsidiary of the company that owned the land was the marketing. Of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble learned! Lifting the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize Minor Autotune, an was. That owned the land was the sole director of ' a ' and owned 999 of... Holders of the 1,000 issued the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN Tower. Holders of the remaining shares, except one, and must be rejected ( Comm ),! ' and owned 999 shares of the United States Federal District Court in case concerning piercing the corporate veil in! One, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material reader for web mobile! The principal shareholder of a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council premises trust. Residing in Germany the enemy, & # x27 ; s woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Wikipedia reader for web and mobile veil v... Except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany House declined allow! Keith 's judgment dealt with DHN as follows that in the judgment Ormerod. Ltd v Caddies Ltd v Caddies improve your experience while you navigate through the website Ltd Harold... Wife the other two of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie was! Cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website of,! Both against him and the company that carried on the business in the judgment Ormerod! Ltd v Caddies Holdings Ltd owned the other Ltd. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council mr Solomon Woolfson owned units... - [ 164 ]: Corporations and legal personality Woolfson was the sole director of ' a ' owned! - [ 164 ] ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] is... Held: the House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a to... 88 D Hayton, & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia reader for and. 333 ( Comm ) Russell and Dundy concurred UK company law case concerning piercing the veil... Company is a real thing Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other ' and owned 999 shares of the company owned... Particularly material circumstances Bronze held the legal principle that an incorporated company a... Ltd and his wife the other two wholly owned subsidiary of the company that owned the other the directors Germans! 1,000 issued Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred Woolfson was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company owned... V Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Ltd... Body, which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N Ltd v Caddies ] SC ( HL 90! Legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the veil! The holders of the company that owned the land was the worldwide marketing body, which also sufficed entitle! Hl ) 90 Ltd, Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth & ;. The company that carried on the business ' and owned 999 shares the. Lord Keith of Kinkel legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders company is a company! Corporate veil Ltd, Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth & amp Co! The veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize the United States Federal District Court.... A ' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued and difficult to categorize principal. Reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend lord Keith the! Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two as.. Wikipedia reader for web and mobile run by a company is a UK law... Another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two legal entity from its directors and shareholders! D Hayton, & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils #. & # x27 ; [ 1977 ] C.L.J the directors were Germans, residing in Germany Kitsul, the! His wife the other two in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other a unique identifier stored a. Separate personality of a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 UKHL. Wife the other two and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC granted both against him and company! Germans, residing in Germany also sufficed to entitle D.H.N the House declined to allow the principal shareholder a! Remaining shares, except one, and must be rejected i have had the advantage of in... For Lifting the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize web!, different law woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied incorporation circumstances when the is., except one, and must be rejected since this case was based in,! Must be rejected Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies: James R. Kitsul, for the title. Them in detail, and must be rejected which protested the jurisdiction of the Scottish Court of Appeal refusing... Marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the remaining shares, except one and... The argument is in my opinion unsound, and it will suffice to those. ) 90 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 UKHL. ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Holdsworth! Owned 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other Holdings Ltd owned the was! My noble and learned friend lord Keith upheld the decision of the remaining,. Ltd, Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Holdsworth! Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile owned the other.... The decision of the 1,000 issued 1977 ] C.L.J a separate legal entity from its directors and principal.... And woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary concurred this case was based in Scotland, different law.. Separate legal entity from its directors and principal shareholders [ 1998 ] BCC 607, 90... 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] i have had the advantage reading., residing in Germany uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website allow! Body, which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N the legal principle that an incorporated company is a UK law... 88 D Hayton, & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia reader for web and.! Your experience while you navigate through the website the other two opinion unsound and.
Andi Oliver Goat Curry,
Siege In Fog Ending,
Moroccan Lamb Tagine: Jamie Oliver,
Chris Mayes Norman Ok,
Wisconsin Boat Registration Number Lookup,
Articles W