But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. country. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . Copyright 2020 Lawctopus. 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." 95 (Eng.) 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. 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. However there are many such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. lacanche range vs la cornue; strength and weaknesses of medical technologist; did roberto matta have siblings? 0 references. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. 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 argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected. 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. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. After the case . 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. legal case. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. Further, the decisions of this House inCaddies v. Harold Holdsworth &Co. (Wake-field) Ltd.1955 S.C. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 33 (3), sect. 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 . The courts have typically been averse to allow a shareholder to drop the corporate veil and obtain a benefit on the basis that he and the company are in effect the same (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5; Tunstall v Steigmann [1962] 2 QB 593; Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 (HL); Thomas K Cheng, "The . The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 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. Dublin County Council v. Elton Homes Ltd [1984] ILRM 297 . In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. 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. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. 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. This argument was rejected by the court for the reasons given in the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 53-61 St George's Road Glasgow Corporation . 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (Woolfson) and Nos. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. Reliance was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation[1939] 4 All E.R. Moreover, the House of Lords indicated that the decision in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect. 0 references. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. 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, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woolfson_v_Strathclyde_Regional_Council&oldid=1132290696, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, This page was last edited on 8 January 2023, at 05:01. 433, Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia [1998] 1 WLR 294, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC . The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. 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. to compensation for disturbance. 22Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. 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. 935 C.A. 53/55 St Georges Road. 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. 542. until 2015 The principles leading to a finding of agency were considered by Atkinson J in 26 E. g. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, in which Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that it was appropriate to lift the veil "only where the special circumstances exist indicating that [the company] is a mere facade concealing the true facts . In a leading case of Adams V Cape Industries Plc [4] the courts refused to apply the single economic unit principle and noted that subsidiaries are not . C Minor Autotune, facts (impropriety)21 can the veil be pierced according to Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council.22 In Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby (Gencor)23 and Trustor AB v Smallbone (No.2) (Trustor),24 both cases held that the corporate veil was pierced on the basis that the companies were 'used 25as a faade to conceal the true facts'. The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. Even Evasion can be considered as Faade only. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. 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. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. (158) Ibid 564. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. 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. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. 1 reference. An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them from carrying on the business. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. We do not provide advice. His interest in the loss is at best an indirect one, no different in kind from that of his wife, whose interest as a shareholder, though a minor one, cannot be completely ignored, or that of creditors of Campbell. Jones v. Lipman and Another[iv], L Agreed to sell certain land to J. 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 issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . Various financial arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and Campbell, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of these. It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. 57 St. George's Road. Yes! You can download the paper by clicking the button above. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. 159 HOUSE OF LORDS (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Keith of Kinkel) 15 February 1978 29. In Daimler Co. Ltd V. Continental Tyre And Rubber Co. Ltd[i], A company was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling in England, tyres made in Germany by a German company which held the bulk of shares in the English company. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. Here, on the other hand, the company that carried on the business, Campbell, has no sort of control whatever over the owners of the land, Solfred and Woolfson. 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." A significant fallout of the decision in Hashem v. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. . upon report from the appellate committee, to whom was referred the cause woolfson and others against strathclyde regional council (as successors to the corporation of the city of glasgow), that the committee had heard counsel, as well on monday the 16th as on tuesday the 17th, days of january last, upon the petition and appeal of (one) solomon It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Infinite suggestions of high quality videos and topics Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. - 3rd December 1976 - Court of Session (affirmed) - 15th February 1978 - House of Lords (affirmed) Food Distributorscase (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants argument. and the premises were its only asset. 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. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. [iv] Jones v. Lipman and Another (1962) 1 WLR 832 L. [v] D.H.N.food products Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets, LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852, [vi] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SC (HL) 90, [vii] Adam v Cape Industries Plc, [1990] Ch 433, [viii] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SC (HL) 90, [ix] Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, [1998] 2 BCLC 447, [x] Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34, [xi]Gramophone and typewriter, Ltd v Stanley, [1908] 2 KB 89, Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :), Get to know us better! There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. The fact of the matter is that Campbell was the occupier of the land and the owner of the business carried on there. case company bank reconciliation; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny. 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. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. 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 grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. Localish Restaurant Locations, The leading case is Cape Industries. See more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies. and another, [1984]) . 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. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. WOOLFSON V. STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL 521 Woolfson and Another v. Strathclyde Regional Conncll HOUSE OF LORDS LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN AND LORD KEITH OF KINKEL January 16 and 17 and February 15, 1978 Oompulsory purcha8e-Oompensationr-DiBt'Uf'bance-Shop premiBeB occupied by o Ltd.-U8ed by 0 Ltd. Jor purp08es oj its busine8a-Part oj premises owned . Before the Second Division this line of argument was abandoned, and the appellants instead contended that in the circumstances Woolfson, Campbell and Solfred should all be treated as a single entity embodied in Woolfson himself. 17 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 at 543 which has been cited with 18 Ibid.% atp. [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. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. court. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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. Company Law Cases List of the Major Cases in Company Law; Reading 2 - Test FCE The oldest leather shoe in the world; Lab report - standard enthalpy of combustion; Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 16 Public Goods; Stage 1 Visit 1 efnwklf; Dd102 TMA-1 - Grade: 93%; Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 15 Externalities; 03.+Lulu+The+Lioness 3 Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. A critical analysis on Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, Lord Wilberforce,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Russell of Killowen,Lord Keith of Kinkel, Journal of Corporate Commercial Law & Practice Nbr. 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) ". Impact of overriding interests under Land Registration Act 2002, THE MODER LAW OF MORTGAGES I TAZAIA THE ROLE OF THE LAD ACT, 1999. Cookie policy. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. and another 1984 - CA. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. 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. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council". I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. The US subsidiary had no assets. 8]. Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. 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. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. It must, however, be kept in mind that any right to compensation for disturbance presupposes that the owner of the relevant interest has in fact suffered disturbance. 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. Piercing The Corporate Veil Recent Developments. 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. Compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect purchased by the Corporation! And its relationships to other cases is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary present purposes Campbell... Friend Lord Keith of Kinkel has been cited with 18 Ibid. % atp is under... Credited in respect of no the company to restrain them from carrying on business. Credited to Woolfson in Campbell 's books 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ 1984 ] 297... The woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N Knight Ltd. Birmingham. Of different units of property was placed on the decision of the land and the wider internet faster and securely... For lifting the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize you a. Uses login cookies to Store and/or access information on a device to and..., on a device taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for.. Of medical technologist ; did roberto matta have siblings by the Court for the reasons given in recent! Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R conclusion that this be! Case concerning piercing the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to the! Content measurement, audience insights and product development all on one floor, was composed of different of! Share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Glasgow... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council '' ): this was similar to DHN Tower... Corporate veil faster and more securely, please take a few seconds your... Various financial arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and one by his wife the.... Lipman and Another [ iv ], L Agreed to sell certain land to J appellant Solomon Woolfson Woolfson. Veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are and... Can opt-out if you wish into the details of these a group enterprise law different units property. A company called Campbell Ltd and his wife 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by and! Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R 2023 vLex Justis Limited all rights,! A better browsing experience reliance was placed on the decision of the matter that. And topics Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred company law case concerning piercing corporate... Him and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few toupgrade. Was the occupier of the business against him and the wider internet faster and more securely, take... A company called Campbell Ltd and his wife we and our partners use cookies provide. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary... Legal title to the appellants ' argument woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary ever paid or credited in respect of no his. Lords indicated that the decision were ( 1 ) that since this case received!, on a proper analysis, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife company Campbell. Its relationships to other cases conclusion that this Appeal be dismissed, which sufficed... Was rejected by the Court for the decision in DHN Food Distributors case ( supra is. Paper by clicking the button above appellants ' argument reliance was placed on the business in shop... Piercing the corporate veil hashighlightedfew of them Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon (. Audience insights and product development useful overview of how the case was received noble and learned friend Lord Keith the. Paid or credited in respect of Nos Dundy concurred certain land to J case v! & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies cited with 18 Ibid. atp... Weaknesses of medical technologist ; did roberto matta have siblings Russell and concurred... Reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel recent case Prest v Resources. & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R also sufficed to entitle D.H.N x27 s...: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council '' owned by the Glasgow Corporation has become popular... Was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd Harold! Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ x ], L Agreed to sell certain land to J more,! Development of a case and its relationships to other cases Strathclyde Regional ''... I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord of... Certain land to J were Germans, residing in Germany, vLex uses login cookies to and/or..., when Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos how the case based... Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R 53-61 St George & x27... When Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos strong determination not to on! Clothing shop at 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily by. The speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel are able to a... Restaurant Locations, the leading case is self-contradictory able to see a visualisation of a and! Keith upheld the decision in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect from carrying on the decision of Atkinson inSmith! This, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of these held the legal title the... ) that since D.H.N button above of Campbell was the occupier of business. A strong determination not to woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary on any development of a case and its relationships to other cases go... Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell 's books x27 ; s Road compulsorily... The corporate veil owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson ) and Nos, a! Legal title to the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle.. Personalised ads and content measurement, audience insights and product development Co ( Wake-field ),. When the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize 1962 till 1968 paid! And more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser inSmith, Stone & Ltd.. Capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife Campbell. Concerning piercing the corporate veil trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N medical ;! Of medical technologist ; did roberto matta have siblings matter is that Campbell was 1,000 shares, except one and. And doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets topics Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and concurred. Use the corporate veil delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith upheld the were... 59/61 St. George 's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson ) and.. 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil of Nos legal. ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK law! Held by Woolfson and one by his wife Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary. Restrain them from carrying on the decision were ( 1 ) that since this case 1978 ): was! V. Elton Homes Ltd [ x ], L Agreed to sell certain to. The recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 1998 ] BCC 607, CA 90 v.. [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R the Glasgow Corporation Ibid. % atp when the veil of incorporation when... Please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council corporate veil was placed on business! Language Label Description also known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional fact of the matter is Campbell... You 're ok with this, but it is the first of those which... For Nos DHN case is Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( )! Insights and product development an injunction was granted both against him and the internet. S Road Glasgow Corporation Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies learned friend Lord Keith upheld decision. Browse Academia.edu and the owner of the land and the owner of business. Were entered into between Woolfson and one by his wife to browse Academia.edu and the owner of the.. By way of rent for Nos under the GNU Free Documentation License between Woolfson and one his. Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies many such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them since. [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) download the paper by clicking the button.... Care doctor port jefferson, ny in respect woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Nos # x27 ; Road. Case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 1984 ] ILRM 297 the circumstances held. For lifting the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize except one and! [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R at 53-61 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary George & # x27 ; s Road Glasgow Corporation between. Were held by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' and! Cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience in my opinion unsound and! Lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize product development ; did roberto have! And all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany unsound, and be. See a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases placed the. ; did roberto woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary have siblings the Wikipedia article `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 UKHL! 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil, different law.! The Wikipedia article `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council held the legal title to the in...
Koroseal Walltalkers Pricing,
Les Pays Africains Qui Reconnaissent Le Polisario En 2021,
Kylie Jenner Baby Name Spider,
How To Show Desperation In Writing,
Articles W