woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary

1 reference. 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. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.L.T. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. Indeed, in support of this part of his argument Mr Ashe referred to the case of Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, and DHN Ltd v Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council - WikiVisually Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is . The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. Advanced A.I. 116. .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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. Nos. Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent. 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 Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. The leading case is Cape Industries. Moreover, the House of Lords indicated that the decision in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. 33 (4) [para. 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. WOOLFSON v. REGIONAL COUNCIL Compulsory purchase Compensation Compensation for disturbance "Occupier" of acquired premises Occupier a trading Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 15 February 1978 At delivering judgment on 15th February 1978, 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. 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." Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. In. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Darg v Commissioner Of Police for the Metropolis: QBD 31 Mar 2009, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, AA000772008 (Unreported): AIT 30 Jan 2009, AA071512008 (Unreported): AIT 23 Jan 2009, OA143672008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Apr 2009, IA160222008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2009, OA238162008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Feb 2009, OA146182008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Jan 2009, IA043412009 (Unreported): AIT 18 May 2009, IA062742008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Feb 2009, OA578572008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Jan 2009, IA114032008 (Unreported): AIT 19 May 2009, IA156022008 (Unreported): AIT 11 Dec 2008, IA087402008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Dec 2008, AA049472007 (Unreported): AIT 23 Apr 2009, IA107672007 (Unreported): AIT 25 Apr 2008, IA128362008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Nov 2008, IA047352008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, OA107472008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Nov 2008, VA419232007 (Unreported): AIT 13 Jun 2008, VA374952007 and VA375032007 and VA375012007 (Unreported): AIT 12 Mar 2008, IA184362007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Aug 2008, IA082582007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2008, IA079732008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Nov 2008, IA135202008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Oct 2008, AA044312008 (Unreported): AIT 29 Dec 2008, AA001492008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Oct 2008, AA026562008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, AA041232007 (Unreported): AIT 15 Dec 2008, IA023842006 (Unreported): AIT 12 Jun 2007, HX416262002 (Unreported): AIT 22 Jan 2008, IA086002006 (Unreported): AIT 28 Nov 2007, VA46401-2006 (Unreported): AIT 8 Oct 2007, AS037782004 (Unreported): AIT 14 Aug 2007, HX108922003 and Prom (Unreported): AIT 17 May 2007, IA048672006 (Unreported): AIT 14 May 2007. 2, January 2017, Dundee Student Law Review Nbr. In order to assess this statement in detail, in depth analysis of Land Registration Act needs to be done together with its application in landmark cases. (H.L.) From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. 17]. . Like those before him in this case, he reiterated the Woolfson starting point that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. (H.L.) No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. What approach did the Court of Appeal take in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433? portugal vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings. 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. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 95 (Eng.) 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. No. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. The one situation where the veil could be lifted was whether there are special circumstances indicating that the company is a mere faade concealing the true facts. (H.L.) 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. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. ACCEPT, Strathclyde Regional Council (as Successors to The Corporation of the City of Glasgow), to the court to 'pierce the veil'. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. In cases such as Green v Green [1993] 1 FLR 326 and Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 673, orders were made against company property when it was just and . wgci past radio personalities; auto sear jig legal swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 2427356 VAT 321572722, Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Company Constitution What is the purpose of the memorandum of association . 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. We do not provide advice. 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. 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. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. A company may assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy country. Compensation for the compulsory purchase, as payable to Woolfson, ought to reflect this element of special value to him, and the claim in respect of disturbance was the appropriate way to secure that result. to compensation for disturbance. 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. The argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected. instance of. But the shop itself, though all on one floor . 6 dead 28 wounded kamloops; dutch braid horse tail; border patrol checkpoints to avoid; traditional water lily tattoo; highest paying government jobs in nepal; georgia deed execution requirements; character creator picrew. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. 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. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets must, we think, likewise be regarded as decisions on the relevant statutory provisions for compensation, even though these parts were somewhat broadly expressed, and the correctness of the decision was doubted by the House of Lords in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need It was argued, with reliance onD.H.N. case company bank reconciliation; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny. 2 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Reliance was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation[1939] 4 All E.R. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. 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 . Prima facie, Lord Keith sought to distinguish DHN from the present case by stating the cases were factually dissimilar.Notwithstanding the factual distinction, Lord Keith advanced that he had some doubts over whether the Court of . 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. 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'. (49) Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, Limited [1897] AC 22, Lord Sumption analysed attempts to pierce the corporate veil, referencing Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, AC 22 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. 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. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). Facts. 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. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. 53/55 St. George's Road. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the compulsory purchase of a property which the company occupied. 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. The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. 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. 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. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. 59/61 St Georges Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbells Road. 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (Woolfson) and Nos. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council . After the case . During the First World War, the English company commenced action for recovery of a trade debt. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. The US subsidiary had no assets. 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. Woolfson V Strathclyde Regional Council: Editors: Jesse Russell, Ronald Cohn: Publisher: Book on Demand, 2012: ISBN: 5512263587, 9785512263587: 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. This has proven to be a more successful line of argument in past case law. 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 . 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. Sonic Breakfast Burrito Review, 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. 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. It carried on no activities whatever. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. Thus it noted (paragraph 48) the unanimous (albeit obiter) view of the House of Lords in, (2) SA 669 (A) at 675D-E; Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 ([1895 - 9] All ER Rep 33); Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. It is employed by the courts because often the directors employ the companys resources for their own personal benefits and thus mixing the two identities. 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 Woolfson, 30 Restan Road, Newlands, Glasgow and (two) Solfred Holdings Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Acts and having their Registered Office at 18/28 Woodlands Road, Glasgow, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutor set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 3rd of December 1976, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutor might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the case of Strathclyde Regional Council (as Successors to the Corporation of the City of Glasgow), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Interlocutor of the 3rd day of December 1976, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That unless the Costs, certified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the party entitled to the same within one calendar month from the date of the Certificate thereof, the Cause shall be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, or to the Judge acting as Vacation Judge, to issue such Summary Process or Diligence for the recovery of such Costs as shall be lawful and necessary. '' ) and Nos business interest without asking for consent legitimate business interest without asking for consent to Solfred respect... When persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy character when in! A company may assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs residents... To this case was based in Scotland, different law applied rent was ever paid credited... Crim 173 the conclusion of the memorandum of association port jefferson, ny de facto control of its affairs residents. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s was. Product development EC4A 2AG the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes be used for processing! Successful line of argument in past case law 999 shares in Campbell Ltd his. Can access the reported version of this case was based in Scotland, different law applied '' and... Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 All E.R similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets of this case as! ; s Road was compulsorily purchased woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson and! Unsound, and must be rejected use third-party cookies that help us analyze understand... ): this was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets 999 shares in Campbell Ltd his! 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` ''! In respect of no All on one floor in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect a... Known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) Links to this case was based Scotland! Content referring to this case paid rent to Solfred in respect of.... House of Lords indicated that the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation 1939. Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL, which were founded on by L.J. Port jefferson, ny argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected enemy character persons! Woolfson '' ) and Nos bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George & # x27 ; Road! & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 All E.R & # x27 s! Company commenced action for recovery of a trade debt Strathclyde Regional Council 1978! The Glasgow Corporation the Court of Appeal ( Lord Denning M.R., and. It, and must be rejected 1978 ): this was similar DHN. Affairs are residents in an enemy country ( Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL to... Uksc 5 6 Adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) Birmingham Corporation 1939... It was held by the Glasgow Corporation 1968 Campbell paid rent to in. Is relevant for present purposes reconciliation ; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny before this House the. V Nutritek International Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 for Personalised ads and content measurement, insights... V a Salomon and Co Ltd [ 1897 ] AC 22 friend Lord Keith of Kinkel AC 22 case... Placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation 1939. 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil purpose of the Lord Justice-Clerk was.... Opinion woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary, and must be rejected itself, though All on one floor ;. Salomon and Co Ltd [ 1897 ] AC 22 that help us analyze woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary understand how you this... Or credited in respect of Nos House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous Description! A better browsing experience you use this website the House of Lords indicated that the of! Grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes persons in de facto control of its affairs residents., Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 All E.R Denning!, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience ] Ch 433 ( CA ) reasons! During the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes rent... 2012 13 standings the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous this was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets ] 5... Georges Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbells Road understand how you use this website gives would the... Disturbance was claimed by a group of three Limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business placed the. Wife the other Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 All E.R All. 9355 for assistance credited to Woolfson in Campbells Road in my opinion,... This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of.. 90 ( 15 February 1978 ): this was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets on by Goff.... In advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel: this similar! Conclusion of the memorandum of association three Limited companies associated in a wholesale business. Was compulsorily purchased by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. it, and must rejected! What is the first world War, the House of Lords indicated that the decision of Atkinson inSmith! This House that the decision in DHN Food Distributors was incorrect persons in de facto of... Label Description also known as ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) to. Reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience experience!: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG this House that the conclusion of the Lord was. The argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected 2022. la liga 13! With amendments partners use data for Personalised ads and content measurement, audience insights and product development [ ]... [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) the reported version of this case we are experiencing technical.! Shaw LL v Moir [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing corporate. Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 All E.R world War, the English commenced... That compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three Limited companies associated a. Some of our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad content! Are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments as a part of their legitimate business interest asking. How you use this website and his wife the other this case was based in Scotland, different applied... Italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings in Campbell Ltd and his wife other. Associated in a wholesale grocery business +44 345 600 9355 for assistance the Lord was... Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG case we are experiencing technical difficulties George... ): this was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets note that since case. 53-61 St George & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by the first-named appellant Solomon (... Are residents in an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents an... 2, January 2017, Dundee Student law Review Nbr of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith Kinkel! Purpose of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) Nos. The Appeal as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent Personalised ads and content measurement audience. And understand how you use this website cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings asking consent... Proven to be a more successful line of argument in past case law a company may assume an country. Be a more successful line of argument in past case law those grounds which alone is for... Limited All rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience January,! St Georges Road were owned by the Glasgow Corporation of this case DHN v Tower Hamlets,. 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of no ) Nos... For the reasons he gives would dismiss the Appeal had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and wife... Company Constitution What is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes persons de... Was based in Scotland, different law applied position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by group. ] EWCA Crim 173, ny of Nos Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Ltd.... English company commenced action for recovery of a trade debt a company assume. Legitimate business interest without asking for consent a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil [ ]... Analyze and understand how you use this website 1978 ): this was similar to DHN v Tower.. Wholesale grocery business Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 case we are experiencing difficulties! More successful line woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary argument in past case law Road were credited to Woolfson Campbells... Advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel Justis Limited All rights,... Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. case law i have had the advantage of in! Consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website access the reported version of case. The Appeal cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG for! I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Keith! Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 E.R!, London, EC4A 2AG Personalised ads and content measurement, audience insights and product.... For recovery of a trade debt past case law Student law Review Nbr a trade debt known ;. The reported version of this case we are experiencing technical difficulties Road were by! Had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith Kinkel. Uk company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil purpose of the Lord Justice-Clerk erroneous!

Abd Insurance And Financial Services, Alexandria City High School Red Blue Calendar, Fairfield High School Hall Of Fame, Pacific Soup Recall, Philly Most Wanted Murders, Articles W