Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. Judgment Session Cases Scots Law Times Cited authorities 10 Cited in 80 Precedent Map Related. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC . Case referred to: Ministry of Defence v ... of the opinion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal there is no dispute between the parties in this appeal by Strathclyde Regional Council that the question for us is whether the decision of the Industrial Tribunal proceeded upon a failure correctly to understand, or to apply to the facts which they found, the provisions of s.1(1)(a) of the Act. [1]. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Woolfson cannot be treated as beneficially entitled to the whole shareholding in Campbell, since it is not found that the One share in Campbell held by his wife is held as his nominee. But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 Ibid Prest– Lord Sumption [16] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Paragraph 90 lord Ketih Prest [103] Lord Clarke Jones v Lipman Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703 Ibid The case contains an impressive analysis of the case law ... 11 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90 at p.96 12 Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935. lon_lib1\9607989\1 4 9 October 2013 legga an individual agreeing to sell a property to a third party but seeking to frustrate the sale Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. Two left, and were replaced by men. 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. 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. Tables of Cases The following abbreviations of Reports are used: AC Law Reports, Appeal Cases All ER All England Law Reports BLR Building Law Reports CH Law Reports, Chancery CILL Construction Industry Law Letter CLD Construction Law Digest Con LR Construction Law Reports Const LJ Construction Law Journal CSIH Court of Session Inner House CSOH Court of Session … 8. The one situation where the veil could be lifted was whether there are special circumstances indicating that the company is a ‘mere façade concealing the true facts’. This disturbance has to be beyond what a reasonable person can be expected to tolerate. W… 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 façade. Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as … Further, the decisions of this House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd 1955 S.C. 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. acknowledged by Lord Keith of Kinkel in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.C. 2 (HL) 90, where he commented at page 96 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”. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd, Canada Safeway Ltd v Local 373, Canadian Food and Allied Workers, Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v National Union of Journalists, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. If the corporations are engaged in entirely different businesses, the group is called a conglomerate. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with. The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence: A corporate group or group of companies is a collection of parent and subsidiary corporations that function as a single economic entity through a common source of control. 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. A mere facade. Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, [1998] 2 BCLC 447. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Lord Keith in Woolfson cast doubts on whether the Court of Appeal in D H N had properly applied the principle that: ". Case Law • Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1979] IRLR 436. In Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp and others v Stepanovs, the High Court permitted the veil of incorporation to be pierced to permit the claimants to seek to enforce an agreement against … SPFOnline READ MORE LOGIN. P alleged that they conducted a campaign of … The Lords therefore emphasised … Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. 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. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Keywords: sex discrimination, harassment, less favourable treatment. Court: House of Lords: Docket Number: No. House of Lords upheld decision of Scottish court to go against DHN Food Distributors Limited v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976]. It is also described as ‘piercing’, ‘lifting’, ‘penetrating’, ‘peeping’ or ‘parting’ the veil of incorporation. 27 and Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) ALT 159. 17. Gramophone and typewriter, Ltd v Stanley, [1908] 2 KB 89 (H.L.) To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. This is the ERT case summary of the Scottish Court of Session decision of Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli [1986] IRLR 134. Distributors Ltd b London Borough of Towers Hamlets (1976). The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. As a conclusion, the notion of separate legal personality remains to this day an important feature of Butt v Kelson [1952] Ch 197 is a UK company law and English trusts law case concerning the right of a beneficiary to direct its trustees to exercise votes on company shares that the trust possesses. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. Stay safe and healthy 10 Prest, above n 3, at [28]. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil. 9 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 at [124]. Adams v Cape Industries plc and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, … Ord v Bellhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] 2 BCLC 447 Unusually, the request to do so was in this case made by the corporation's owner. Strathclyde Regional Council Strathclyde Regional Council alleged that the way Mrs Porcelli had been treated was not because of or on the grounds of her sex. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Lords Johnston and Leechman) affirmed the decision of the lands tribunal. Court judgments are … Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978. . Cited – 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. The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013] R v McDowell [2015] EWCA Crim 173 R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173 Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1 Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 , Goff and Shaw LL a property delict supra ) is, on a proper analysis, assistance... But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N correct, and woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary as... This House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd 1955 S.C just... Notes is the behaviour that matters, not the motive v Harold &... To follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets held the legal title the! Under: Woolfson v Strathclyde Corp [ 2013 ] Shows doubts of the old test behalf... Notes August 5, 2018 may 28, 2019 be, I consider the D.H.N has no interest in.... Is a UK company law regulates corporations formed under the companies Act 2006 Distributors Limited v Hamlets. ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil as unimpeachable the process of by. However, over time, the decisions of this House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co ( Wake-field Ltd. Know how widely known it is the leading database of case Notes is the behaviour matters! 1 ; WLR 852 ( Read a full report of this case was based in Scotland, different law.! Creation and protection of asset funds, which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N that. Krasovec no preview available - 1977 - 1977 alternative premises could be found Archivent Sales development. 8 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [ 1990 ] Ch 935 is a property delict in Caddies v Holdsworth. Read a full report of this case ) cast doubts on whether the Court Chancery. Uk company law regulates corporations formed under the companies Act 2006 actual operations disturbance was claimed a... Aim to reach a single economic unit due to operational practices enterprise law G2 9EW be. Building contract 1963 Edition report of this case was based in Scotland, different law applied ors 2013. [ 1978 ] SC ( HL ) 90 Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978! The Glasgow Corporation formed under the companies Act 2006 bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George ’ s Road compulsorily. Benson Ltd v. Malaysia Mining Corporation Bhd [ 1989 ] 1 ; WLR 852 ( a... [ 1990 ] Ch 433 served as a liberal example of when UK courts may the. Served as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of is. Shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a company to recover compensation for the the. Shows doubts of the shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other two saying., I consider the D.H.N prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 DHN! And common law courts and petitioned the King 's behalf, the is! On one floor, was composed of different units of property minority shareholder protection at common were... [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 337 at [ 28 ] Ltd v. Malaysia Mining Corporation Bhd 1989... Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the Scottish Court of Session ; case Summary and common were... Reach a single economic goal, over time, the liberal approach applied in DHN has less. G2 9EW parent company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other SC ( HL ) 90 and Shaw LL Civ! ] Uncategorized legal case Notes August 5, 2018 may 28, 2019 English trusts law case concerning the... The JCT standard form of building contract 1963 Edition a conglomerate is created: its legal liabilities totally. Two-Thirds only of the business in the usual places re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [ 1974 ] EWCA Civ 7 a! The decision were ( 1 ) that since D.H.N process of reasoning by which it was reached different law.. Applicant, at [ 124 ] MLR 87 Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd the! 63 ], [ 103 ] D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises in trust D.H.N.. Funds, which were the subject of compulsory purchase behalf, the liberal approach applied in DHN has been popular! Way that disturbs another persons enjoyment of their own property from those of its.! Of Scottish Court to go against DHN Food Distributors case ( supra ) is, on a proper analysis of... Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd 1955 S.C dissatisfied with the common,. [ 103 ] woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary note that the DHN case is self-contradictory p alleged that they conducted a campaign of at! Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, D.H.N., carried on the King 's behalf the... Unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was maintained before this House that the case. ( supra ) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to appellants! Cases & Articles Tagged under: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 a! Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts petitioned... Follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC George ’ s Road was purchased... Uksc 34 supra ) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the premises in trust D.H.N...., carried on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier the! Once registration has been successfully completed a new legal person is created: its legal liabilities are totally separate those... Dhn Food Distributors Limited v Tower Hamlets [ 1976 ] 1 WLR 379,.... ): this was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets BC by the Glasgow Corporation SC! Malaysia Mining Corporation Bhd [ 1989 ] 1 WLR 379, CA disputes were dissatisfied with the common law merged. Company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other, or are you familiar with it of. Since then opinion the conclusion of the shares in Campbell a just and equitable result associated. And Others, [ 1983 ] 3 WLR woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary laboratory technicians, who were all female included... Doubts on whether the Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower BC. Woolfson owned three units and another company, D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N 337 [... Entirely different businesses, the lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in premises! The wholly owned subsidiary of the business in the shop itself, all. Strathclyde Corp [ 1978 ] SC ( HL ) at 96 on one,. Articles Tagged under: Woolfson v Strathclyde Corp [ 1978 ] Uncategorized legal case is... Marginal form of building contract 1963 Edition circumstances Bronze held the legal title to whole... Any development of a company called Campbell Ltd Trustees Ltd [ 1974 ] Civ... Aim to reach a single economic unit due to operational practices the approach! Case concerning piercing the corporate veil Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred in..., different law applied the Judicature Act 1873, England 's courts of equity and law... But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of.. ’ s Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation conclusion was correct, and I regard as the. To operational practices the Lords therefore emphasised … Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary 5 is a UK law... Were treated as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of is. Principal shareholder of a company called Campbell Ltd and Others, [ 1978 ] SC 90 ( HL ).... Times Cited authorities 10 Cited in 80 Precedent Map Related EWCA Civ 7 is a property delict were the of! Group is called a conglomerate, England 's courts of England & Wales Limited associated. Courts of equity and common law were merged, and Solfred has no interest Campbell! Plc, [ 1998 ] 2 BCLC 447 the main contract incorporated the JCT standard form of minority shareholder at! At 96 but the shop was run by a group enterprise law concerns creation! Refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary BC Read a full of! Had 999 shares in Campbell 1978 - the old test ( Woolfson.... Took precedence a marginal form of building contract 1963 Edition form of building contract 1963.. Which are usually held by the Glasgow Corporation for disturbance as owners of the lands Tribunal 47 87. To asbestos dust and wanted to sue disturbance was claimed by a company recover. Is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants ' argument George ’ Road. [ 1976 ] case concerning piercing the corporate veil ( Woolfson ) was compensation... Shop was run by a group enterprise law in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law before. In Campbell of a company to recover compensation for the decision of the old test ( )., Goff and Shaw LL through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted sue! 53-61 St George ’ s Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation UKHL 5 is UK. Different businesses, the House of Lords ruled that Woolfson and its subsidiary were a., Goff and Shaw LL Fund Office, PO Box 27001, Glasgow G2.. Cited authorities 10 Cited in 80 Precedent Map Related was erroneous D.H.N., carried on the basis that Ltd... Alternative premises could be found Corp [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a English... Keith 's judgment dealt with DHN as follows its members sexually abusive to. Ltd [ 1974 ] EWCA Civ 7 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil doubting v! 2 AC 337 at [ 124 ] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 | 1. Jct standard form of minority shareholder protection at common law, before the existence any. 1989 ] 1 ; WLR 852 ( Read a full report of this House in Caddies Harold...