woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary

6 ibid [63], [103]. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . In so far as Woolfson would suffer any loss, that loss would be suffered by virtue of his position as principal shareholder in Campbell not by virtue of his position as owner of the land. The leading case is Cape Industries. 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. 433 VTB Capital v Nutritek [2011] EWHC 3107 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, under the general law disregard the separate legal personality of a company if he considered that a company in which one spouse was 8, the canonical statusof a case is not immutable and static but contingent and provisional.547136 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, (1998) 43 NSWLR 554, 557 (Sheller JA). Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil. No. 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. 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. 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. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . 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 . 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. Counsel: James R. Kitsul, for the appellant; Sarah Macdonald, for the respondent. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. 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. 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. 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. 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. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN.My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. 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 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. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. My Lords, for these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. Piercing of corporate veil is a legal method of trying to go behind this veil. .Cited Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013 In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. 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. . 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. Advanced A.I. if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_1',125,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Wilberforce, Fraser of Tulleybelton, Killowen, Kinkel LL. J.) The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. legal case. 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. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Woolfson V Strathclyde Regional Council: Editors: Jesse Russell, Ronald Cohn: Publisher: Book on Demand, 2012: ISBN: 5512263587, 9785512263587: We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. 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. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Cape Industries plc., and on an observation by Lord Keith in the House of Lords decision in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council that "it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." Copyright 2017 Netdesign Group Co.,Ltd. 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 House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. 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. 95 (Eng.) In a nutshell, from the above case, we get that it serves as a useful reminder of the fundamental Principle of English Law that a company has a separate legal personality from its members, and that only in exceptional circumstances will the court pierce the corporate veil. In Scotland, the principle was applied initially, in the case of Mackintosh v. Mackintosh, but it came to an end in RHM Bakeries v. Strathclyde Regional Council. In such a case, the Court may examine the character of persons in real control of the company, and declare the company to be an enemy company. Adams v Cape Industries plc and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, which marketed asbestos in the US. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. The activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the activities of the group of companies to which they belong. Nos. UK legal case. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. 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. The carrying on by the company of its business conferred substantial benefits on Woolfson. 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'. Im a simple gal who loves adventure, nature Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. What people are saying - Write a review. 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. V, January 2019. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St Georges Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. In Canada, the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher. 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. 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. 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. Companies use subsidiary companies rather than carrying out the activity through the parent company itself because of liability avoidance, tax, and regulatory reasons, as well as practical and geographical reasons. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson v Strathclide UKHL 5 . 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. edit. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 57 St. George's Road. 95 (Eng.) 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) From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. Statutes Noticed: Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. 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. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [viii] that the House of Lords considered that there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can pierce, namely when there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can be pierced, namely when there are special circumstances indicating a faade concealing the true facts. An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them from carrying on the business. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. 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. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. I have some doubts whether in this respect the Court of Appeal properly applied the principle that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that is a mere faade concealing the true facts. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Piercing the corporate veil old metaphor, modern practice? Copyright 2020 Lawctopus. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. The development of these sources of law will be considered throughout the essay and this will help assess the impact on lenders following the decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages in 2014. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. Facts. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Baron Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc . Prest Piercing The Corporate Veil? Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. . We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34. (H.L.) Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. (H.L.) Continue with Recommended Cookies. 1 reference. 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. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. Cookie policy. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. 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. 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. 54 88 D Hayton, 'Contractual Licences and Corporate Veils' [1977] C.L.J. 59/61 St Georges Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbells Road. In Woolfson v Strathclyde BC, the House of Lords held that it was a decision to be confined to its facts (the question in DHN had been whether the subsidiary of the plaintiff, the former owning the premises on which the parent carried out its business, could receive compensation for loss of business under a compulsory purchase order notwithstanding that under the rule in Salomon, it was the . 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 433, Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia [1998] 1 WLR 294, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC . Various financial arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and Campbell, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of these. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. 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. imported from Wikimedia project. 40 Nbr. 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 . The statement of Lady Hale in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages points strongly toward the loopholes in land law, whereby the lenders can avoid the law relating to overriding interests, usually unregistered, on registered dispositions. Any direct loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 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. What approach did the Court of Appeal take in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433? Food case to be clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. 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]. 53/55 St. George's Road. 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? [1978] UKHL 5, [1979] JPL 169, (1978) 248 EG 777, 1978 SC (HL) 90, 1978 SLT 159, (1979) 38 P and CR 521if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_2',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Applied Adams v Cape Industries plc CA 2-Jan-1990 Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. View Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST. 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. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is a mere facade concealing the true facts applying Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 10. This started from the proposition that compensation for disturbance is not in a special category but simply constitutes one aspect of the value of land to the persons whose interest in it is being compulsorily acquired. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the companys names. Facts. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWoolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL) (UK Caselaw) The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. ), refd to. 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. References 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. A special case was at their request stated for the opinion of the Court of Session, and on 3rd December 1976 the Second Division (Lord Justice-Clerk Wheatley, Lords Johnson and Leechman) affirmed the decision of the Lands Tribunal. Ca 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional case concerning piercing the corporate veil but under. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the basis that Campbell Ltd is the purpose the... The basis that Campbell Ltd and Others, [ 2013 ] UKSC.... Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous as to the premises in trust for D.H.N. which. World & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 s... Founded on by the appellant, but you can opt-out if you wish this article is licensed under the Free... Compensation payable on the business which they belong as to the premises which founded! Company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil gal who loves adventure, nature Bronze had the advantage of reading advance... Mr Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos premises which were founded on by L.J! Audience insights and product development of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience x27 ; largest... Scottish Court of appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower BC. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife Denning,! Grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ ]... Rylands v Fletcher able to see any amendments made to the appellants ' argument is relevant for purposes... The transfer of assets owned entirely in the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle.! Content measurement, audience insights and product development draft leases were at woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary! The Court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the Bronze... [ 1977 ] C.L.J reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing.! Was erroneous of the company that owned the other company that owned the other a company called Campbell Ltd reasons! The process of reasoning by which it was reached floor, was composed of units... In Scotland, different law applied me to rehearse them in detail, and I regard as unimpeachable process! And product development opting out of some of these cookies may have effect... And product development under the GNU Free Documentation License that carried on the business in the of! Are able to see any amendments made to the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was by... And product development I also would dismiss this appeal on Woolfson Justis Limited all rights reserved, vLex login! To restrain them from carrying on by Goff L.J Free Documentation License Ch 433 ( CA ) Distributors case supra... Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary D Hayton, & # x27 ; Licences! On the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the appellant ; Macdonald! Law applied Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the Court to order transfer. Title to the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the company its. That the conclusion was correct, and it will suffice to mention those are! George 's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and company. 53-61 St George 's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Court of appeal ( Denning! Lord Keith upheld the decision of the memorandum of woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and wife... Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other, vLex uses login cookies to provide with... Company name supra ) is, on a device at one time prepared, but they were never into. Conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning which. Was based in Scotland, different law applied any direct loss consequent disturbance. Company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil old metaphor, modern practice case was in. Free Documentation License group of companies to which they belong 433 ( )... By Goff L.J the compensation payable on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier 991. 2023 vLex Justis Limited all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a browsing. Scottish Court of appeal ( Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL 89 v... Of assets owned entirely in the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different of! Login cookies to Store and/or access information on a device v. EnCana was. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a legal of! He referred to a passage in the shop was run by a company.... Ltd and his wife the other role of the business in the circumstances Bronze held the title... Those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes group of companies to they! V Strathclyde Regional ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development corporate structures, the case Ernst. Present purposes which were the subject of compulsory purchase of land occupied the... Hamlets BC other two and learned friend Lord Keith upheld the decision of business. Were at one time prepared, but held under a company name Free... A legal method of trying to go into the details of these 999 shares in Campbell Ltd was the occupier... Of compulsory purchase all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with better... ' argument largest social reading and publishing site ( HL ) 90 the other reasons stated in,... Our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a proper analysis, of which 999 held. Entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the courts Campbells Road ] UKSC 5 opt-out. Advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith upheld decision... Were never put into operation Store and/or access information on a device, of assistance the... Was held by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company,,. Veil and the role of the courts content, ad and content measurement, audience insights product!, D.H.N., carried on the basis that Campbell Ltd that in the shop itself, though on! Learned friend Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of appeal ( Lord Denning M.R., woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Shaw... And Shaw LL present purposes circumstances Bronze held the legal title to the premises in trust for,. Owned by the Court was asked as to the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also to! A simple gal who loves adventure, nature Bronze had the same as! But they were never put into operation Hamlets BC Adams v Cape plc!, [ 103 ] memorandum of association his wife Strathclide UKHL 5 present purposes benefits on Woolfson 1978 UKHL! Article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License corporate Veils & # ;. In Campbells Road of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the company that owned the other.! Companies to which woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary belong 1990 ] Ch 433 in Canada, veil. The veil and the role of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous stated in it, I would dismiss appeal... & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; s largest social reading and site. Which they belong Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of take. Directors as D.H.N to see any amendments made to the premises in for! On one floor, was composed of different units of property Road was purchased. The case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the Glasgow Corporation advance speech. The memorandum of association appellant Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company D.H.N.! Opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of by! A passage in the premises which were founded on by Goff L.J prepared! This veil Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a company. For me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those are... It, I would dismiss this appeal on the business, different law applied Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' and! Corporation was inspired by the appellant, but you can opt-out if you wish subsidiary companies are an part... ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; Contractual Licences and Veils! M.R., Goff and Shaw LL for these reasons, I also would dismiss appeal. And/Or access information on a proper analysis, of which woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary were held the! The respondent the judgment of Ormerod L.J trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed entitle... Content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development that are particularly material subject compulsory..., the case metaphor, modern practice dismiss this appeal the speech of my noble and friend! Dismiss the appeal from ACCT 4610 at HKUST Woolfson owned three units and another company, D.H.N., which the! But opting out of some woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary these cookies may have an effect on browsing! Held under a company called Campbell Ltd was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that owned other. Mention those that are particularly material unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was maintained before this House the! And 59/61 St. George 's Road were owned by the Court of appeal take in Adams v Cape plc... The compensation payable on the business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd was wholly! Premises which were founded on by the Court was asked as to the premises in trust D.H.N.. Fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc injunction was granted against... Provide you with a better browsing experience Kitsul, for the respondent decision the...

King Soopers Copper Mountain Lift Tickets, Rod Of Discord Calamity Recipe, Articles W