woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary21 May woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary
See Adams v. Cape Industries plc [1991] 1 All ER 929; Trustor AB v. Smallbone [2001] (No 2) [2001] 3 All ER 987; VTB Capital plc v. Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5; Prest v. Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34. TABLE OF CASES 1. ratification can be express or implied from the principal's conduct. Lord Staughton explains in Atlas Maritime Co. SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (No. 1–3 Molecular self-assembly can be controlled using a variety of stimuli including chemical 4,5 and mechanical triggers. Guidelines on the investigative interviewing of children. . Lifting the veil can be merely described as “least … 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 façade concealing the true facts. Sample of Narrative Essay TopicsSample of narrative essay topics are easy to come by in all forms of writing, and they are also extremely important. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. 159, on the basis that the veil could be lifted only against shareholders. is funded by grants from CIRM and BHF , and A.L. Lifting the veil can be merely described as “least … Sham companies. Companies act 1985 s.36C. 5) Decision 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). Like DHN before it, Woolfson involved the compulsory acquisition of trading premises by a local authority and a claim for the loss of business by the trading company, notwithstanding the fact that the company did not own the premises itself. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company ‘B’. The principle established in the UK House of … Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. ... and the correctness of the decision was doubted by the House of Lords in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] S.L.T. 13 controller may be personally liable, generally in addition to the company, for something that he has done as its agent or as a joint actor. In each case, the elastic modulus ... ( EP/G005877/1 ). In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, 7 a shop made up of different units of property was compulsorily purchased. Case Law • Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1979] IRLR 436. has addressed the issue in two cases. See text to n. 78. 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 faA§ade. See Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC 90 (HL); cf. In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [25], the House of Lords disapproved of Denning’s comments and said that the corporate veil would be upheld unless the company was a façade. Science [Vol.351 #6268] - 2016-01-01 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The leading case is Cape Industries. 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. This undermines the Salomon principle. Case Date: May 07, 1998: Jurisdiction: British Columbia: Citations ... Summary: Actton Petroleum owned real property on which Actton Super-Save operated a gas station. Court case. In support of this line of argument he referred to the recognition that there may be special circumstances in which a limited company may be regarded as the façade concealing the true facts (Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council … Harassment. The House of Lords decision in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) SLT 159 muddied the water somewhat by saying that the courts should only pierce the veil in special circumstances, but failed to define exactly what these circumstances were. Glasgow: Strathclyde Regional Council. 8 Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111. 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) For example: Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) Jones v Lipman (1962) Nationality. 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) Irish Cases The Roundabout Ltd. v. Beirne and Others ... (Unreported, High Court, Costello J., 22nd June, 1981) … and the decision in The State (McInerney) v. Dublin County Council [1985] I.R. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell … McPherson’s Trs. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. Strathclyde Social Work Department . Adams v Cape Industries 1990 ... - In the recent case of Cox v Jones [2004], the parties were barristers who met in 1997 and became engaged in February 1998. 58. Cases Reported & Cited — W. The names of cases reported are indicated in bold type. Kelly, Barbara and Boyle, E. and Stobie, S. and Woolfson, L. and Cross, G. and Truswell, E. Promoting Social Inclusion : a study of practice in three Lanarkshire Primaries. v LIST OF ABBREVIATION Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) S.L.T. 1) 1) Instead of relying on the interest of justice approach, the Court of Appeal in the Adams case had applied the test as stated by Lord Reid in the Scottish case of Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council above, that the veil would only be pieced where special circumstances exist indicating that there is a mere facade concealing the true facts. It was required to rule on whether … Non-equilibrium, transient nanostructures, … 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. Case law examples. leading scottish case on apparent authority - failure to object to the conduct of the agent. It is also my respectful view that the special circumstances to which Lord Keith referred [in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159] include … However, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the House of Lords rejected Lord Denning’s view, doubting whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct principle in DHN. Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd, [1983] 3 WLR 492. In S.C.F. Jones v Lipman, Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, New Zealand Seamen’s Union IUOW v Shipping Corporation Ltd, Official Assignee v 15 Insoll Avenue Ltd in favour of lifting the corporate veil. Amit Products Ltd. v Chief Engineer (O & M) ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) S.C.(H.L.) In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90 HL (Sc), the court recognised that the issue of Control is a significant matter when considering if the corporate veil should be lifted. However as Ottolenghi notes, “From Peeping Behind the Corporate Veil, to Ignoring it Completely” (1990) 53 M.L.R. 338, 350, DHN is only one of many cases where the veil is lifted in shareholders' favour. v Watt. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. [Report] Kelly, Laura Migration and medical education : Irish medical students at the University of Glasgow, 1859-1900. and another 1984 - CA. Book Reviews Book Reviews 1997-12-01 00:00:00 Industrial Relations Journal 28:4 ISSN 0019-8692 Managing the Offshore Installation Work- come contribution to the current debate. 22 Prest (n 1) [28] (Lord Sumption). Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. View: 353 Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.It exemplifies the principal case in which the veil will be lifted, that is, when a company is used as a "mere facade" concealing the "true facts", which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre-existing obligation. case, in effect, preserving—as opposed to altering—the legal status quo with regards to corporate ... 21 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC 90 (HL) 92 (Lord Keith); Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA) 542 (Goff LJ). 6 ibid [63], [103]. By George Vassiliades “Lifting” and “Piercing” the corporate veil are two different sides of the same coin. The senseofjustice to 'lifting veil' in itsthree led the distinct to categories, thebenefit of thecompanies themselves. The general exception was described in the Woolfson case129129Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC (HL) 90 at 96 by Lord Keith as “the principle that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating ...... Of ‘Landmark’ or ‘Leading’ Cases: Salomon's Challenge United Kingdom Sham companies. This decision was doubted in the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council(1978). Compare: Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, 1978 S.L.T. An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon. In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a façade concealing the true facts. ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5; Wroth v Tyler [1974] Ch 30; Legislation Referenced. In Leichhardt Municipal Council vs. Montgomery, the High Court of Australia was faced with two important questions. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159 (HL). 57. Legislation . Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . The House of Lords in Woolfson and Others v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 held that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil … In his summary of the result of the appeal the Vice-Chancellor upheld the order of Rimer J regarding the liability of Mr Smallbone for the sum of 426,439 received by him from the money of Trustor paid to Introcom. The more control a parent company has over its subsidiary; the more it seems the court is willing to make it liable for the actions of the subsidiary. Topic: Indirect Discrimination. Case: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] UKSC 34 Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132 Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. is funded by the PBC , the Israeli Council for Higher Education. ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. (Social Work Department, 35 Church Street, Glasgow G11 5JT, Scotland) Google Scholar ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): This was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. ... A.C. 669; [1996] 2 All ER 961; [1996] CLC 990; (1996), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130; 146 New L.J. It was a case on all fours with DHN Food Distributors on its facts. 6,7 By definition, self-assembly systems operate in the direction that lowers their free energy. The property was expropriated. Therefore, they had not violated the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Depute Principal Psychologist Strathclyde Regional Council 1981-1982. find something interesting to watch in seconds. This is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). The wife appealed. DHN Food Distributors Ltd , Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 3 All ER 464. 1. is funded by the PBC , the Israeli Council for Higher Education. However, the House of Lords ruled that Woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational practices. The tide turns: The Albazero and Woolfson 33 3.7.1 The Albazero (July 1976) 33 3.7.2 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (February 1978) 33 3.7.3 Attempting to stem the tide: Amalgamated Investment and Lewis Trusts 35 3.8 The screw tightens: Multinational, Dimbleby, Pinn & Wheeler 36 3.8.1 Contents Facts Judgment See also Notes References Facts A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. case, in effect, preserving—as opposed to altering—the legal status quo with regards to corporate ... 21 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC 90 (HL) 92 (Lord Keith); Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA) 542 (Goff LJ). £1.50. Friday, 31 January, 1986. However, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the House of Lords rejected Lord Denning’s view, doubting whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct principle in DHN. In my opinion, it is relevant to recall that where a person or persons choose to obtain the benefits of limited liability by trading through the medium of a registered company, they have also to accept the disadvantages to which separate legal personality gives rise. 57 and 59/61, St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (" Woolfson") and nos. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Company Law Summary Notes (1) Grm Legal Opinion of Nigel White (1) (1).PdfCONFIDENTIAL ... of the case as appearing in the reported judgment the JV was not a Co. incorporated U/T/CA unlike in the New Horizons case. Holdsworth & Co v Caddies [1955] 1 WLR 352. DHN Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 243 Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] UKHL 41 Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby [2000] EWHC 1560 (Ch) Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703 (Ch) Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 ERT Case Summary: Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli. 22 Prest (n 1) [28] (Lord Sumption). (ii) on the particular facts of the case it could be shown that an asset legally owned by the company was in fact held in trust for the husband. Country: United Kingdom. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) HL 248 EG 777: in a similar situation to DHN, the decision was not followed as subsidiaries were … Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. F Dr Lisa Woolfson Psychological Sciences & Health HOS to 2013. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) 38 P & CR 521 26 Wragg Ltd, re [1897] 1 Ch 796 222 Yeovil Glove Co Ltd, re [1965] Ch 148 436 Yorkshire Enterprises Ltd v Robson Rhodes New Law Online (1998) 17 June, Transcript Case No 2980610103 463 Young v Ladies Imperial Club [1920] 2 KB 523 386 Zinotty Properties Ltd, re [1984] 3 All ER 754 358 Companies Acts; Insolvency Act 1986, s423; A suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue. See Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC 90 (HL); cf. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd provides a significant reassessment of the law relating to a court's ability to circumvent corporate personality. Similar Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby, Jones v Lipman [Case Law Company]['Sham/façade companies'] Trustor AB v Smallbone and others [2001] 2 BCLC 436 (Ch) Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703 (Ch) is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. Sham companies. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. • We will look at this case in some detail below. infinite suggestions of high quality videos & topics 1) that “lifting or peeping behind the corporate veil” means “having regard to the shareholding in a company for some legal purpose". Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court 480 U.S. 102 [1987] ... Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 38 P and CR 521, HL . He noted that there was no House of Lords (or Supreme Court) authority confirming that such a power existed – the issue arose in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978], but the most that could be said about that case was that the House of Lords was prepared to assume that the power existed without deciding the point. Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. VICE DEANS (ACADEMIC) OR EQUIVALENT. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . . This is quite unlike the case of Pennington v Burnley Borough Council where the investment approach was used in assessing the value of the property after it was compulsorily acquired. science magazine January 2016 However, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the House of Lords rejected Lord Denning’s view, doubting whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct principle in DHN. 5 Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd [1916] 2 AC 307; Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832; Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5; Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 433; Re Polly Peck International plc (in administration) [1996] 2 All ER 433; Benefit Strategies group Inc v Pride [2004] SASC 365; 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. In the case at bar, the onus was on Ms. Marquis to show that the structure of Brands Inc was a mere facade. Additionally, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978] SC 90, the House of Lords has since then rejected [33] I find that it is doubtful that an … The willingness of the Court of Appeal in the DHN case to treat all the companies as one contrasts sharply with its insistence on applying the Salomon principle in Lonrho [2.06]. 22 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90. See text to n. 78. This is the ERT case summary of the Scottish Court of Session decision of Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli [1986] IRLR 134. However, the House of Lords ruled that Woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational practices. 10. 3 Vacancies. 9. In Coleman V Myers case said that “a share does not constitute an interest in the assets of a company”. 2 4) Legal Arguments ... 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. ISBN: 9780199298426. with the Claimant. case of DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets (1976) 1 WLR 852 which, however, had been disapproved by the decisions in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SCHL 90 and Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. Lord Staughton explains in Atlas Maritime Co. SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (No. In-text: (Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. B.P. JUDICIAL VEIL LIFTING - FRAUD • In Lam Kam Loy & Anor v Boltex Sdn Bhd & Ors [2005] “ …it is not open to the courts to disregard the corporate veil purely on the ground that it is in the interests of justice to do so. Special conditions may justify lifting the corporate veil if the company structure is a mere facade hide the true facts. Case referred to: Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1979] IRLR 436. 1) that “lifting or peeping behind the corporate veil” means “having regard to the shareholding in a company for some legal purpose". The court held that the money belonged to Boston. Ltd. v. Ariff, [2007] NSWSC 589, considered, ... Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SLT 59, dicta of … Old Mrs McPherson died and left four houses. The US subsidiary had no assets. Nos. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory [27]. The leading case is Cape Industries. In Salomon’s case, the liquidator seeks to avoid payment of Salomon’s debentures on the reason that the company was merely a sham. However, it is important to put this ground-breaking case in some context. Watt undertook to sell them on behalf of … 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 façade to conceal the true facts’. Publisher: Oxford University Press. 17 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 at 543 which has been cited with Case law examples. Multinational corporate groups are now the world’s dominant economic institution. New Series. v Council1978SLT 159,38 P & CR 521 (HL). Counsel cited Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159 HL and Yukong Lne Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Lberia and Others (No.2) [1998] 1 WLR 294. By George Vassiliades “Lifting” and “Piercing” the corporate veil are two different sides of the same coin. Science Dr Chris Prior (elected to 2012) VD to 2014 The case Kelner v Baxter (1866) illustrates this. This turning of the judicial spotlight on to a fundamental, yet notoriously obscure, issue of company law is greatly to be wel ... A.C. 22 (H.L.). The Vice-Chancellor then considered the … Per cent w/v (% w/v) (percentage weight in volume) expresses the number of grams of solute in 100 ml of product. Like DHN before it, Woolfson involved the compulsory acquisition of trading premises by a local authority and a claim for the loss of business by the trading company, notwithstanding the fact that the company did not own the premises itself. The Supreme Court considered that the application of ordinary legal principles (‘the concealment principle’) should ordinarily override a court's ability to apply an equitable veil … employees have a contract of employment with their employer; the most ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978]. 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) Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 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. industrial relations regime and concludes Tulsa, Oklahoma: Penn Well, 1996, 261pp., … This case involved a lawyer from Aberdeen (in Aberdeen lawyers are called Advocates). Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 [1] Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013] [2] Spear’s, ‘Expert analysis of the Prest Judgement (Spear’s ,11 June 2013) < http:///www.spearswms.com/expert-analysis-of-the-Prest-judgment/ > accessed 8th March 2017 [3] French D, Mayson S & Ryan C, Company law (31st edn, OUP) 127 Case law examples. In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a façade concealing the true facts. 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 façade concealing the true facts.” A significant fallout of the decision in Hashem v. You should be aware of the problems in this area. This turning of the judicial spotlight on to a fundamental, yet notoriously obscure, issue of company law is greatly to be wel ... A.C. 22 (H.L.). Trusts formalities and the doctrine in Rochefoucauld v Boustead; Swadling - The Nature of the Trust in Rochefoucauld v Boustead; EU Law Supremacy Essay; Head 10 - Prescription; Head 8 - Competition of Title; Head 9 - Possession - Notes from Property law uoe. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. Woolfson v. Strathclyde, Regional Council is the famous case which began to disapprove veil lifting and in that case, “Lord Keith stated that the only situation where a corporate veil could be lifted was where there are special circumstances indicating that the company is a ‘mere facade concealing the true facts.’ Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] 2 All ER 118 3. 57 and 59/61 St George’s Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (“Woolfson”) and Nos. (1993). 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. ballantine v stevenson. 9780773452114 0773452117 Children's Learner Identity as Key to Quality Primary Education - Eight Case Studies of Schooling in India Today, Rita Chawla-Duggan ... 9780821317686 0821317687 The Economy of the U. S. S. R. - Summary and Recommendations ... Richard Woolfson 9780892782796 089278279X Hormones and Cell Metabolism, P.J. In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [25], the House of Lords disapproved of Denning’s comments and said that the corporate veil would be upheld unless the company was a façade. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then [26]. Sex. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then [26]. ... woolfson v strathclyde regional council. The tide turns: The Albazero and Woolfson 33 3.7.1 The Albazero (July 1976) 33 3.7.2 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (February 1978) 33 3.7.3 Attempting to stem the tide: Amalgamated Investment and Lewis Trusts 35 3.8 The screw tightens: Multinational, Dimbleby, Pinn & Wheeler 36 3.8.1 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (leading case) – see discussion of case below although note this was written pre Prest and VTB Recent cases Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, the Times, 24 June 2013. In Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433, Slane LJ held: '(...) the court is not free to disregard the principles of Salomon v Salomon merely because it considers that justice so requires.' Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852, a case which is at present of doubtful authority (see, Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 15). Category: Law. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159. A very remarkable case is Newborne v. Sensolid (1954) ... Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) was similar to DHN v Tower Hamlets. 5 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC (HL) 90. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 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. (536). He recommenced business activities in 1995. B.P. M Professor Ian Wooton Economics 2012 (1) M Dr John Young Humanities 2014 (1) F Mrs Louise Young Strathclyde Innovations in Drug 2012 (1) Research. The force chapter sets out a description of the current Rhona Flin and Georgina Slaven (Eds.) Pamphlet No. Europe PMC is an archive of life sciences journal literature. However, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [9] the House of Lords rejected Lord Denning’s view, doubting whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct principle in DHN. 5 [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch). 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. Both Actton Petroleum and Actton Super-Save filed claims with the Expropriation Compensation Board. These can be implemented by the courts on a case-by-case basis, or by statute. Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 243. 58/55 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. Some of the units were owned by Mr Woolfson; the others were owned by Solfred Holdings Ltd (‘Solfred’). and another, [1984]) ... In-text: (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978]) Your Bibliography: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] EGLR 2, p.19. Companies Act 2006 . See Wedderburn, (1984) 47 MLR 87. Page: 725. Click here to start building your own bibliography. In times of war it is illegal to trade with the enemy. See Adams v. Cape Industries plc [1991] 1 All ER 929; Trustor AB v. Smallbone [2001] (No 2) [2001] 3 All ER 987; VTB Capital plc v. Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5; Prest v. Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34. Adams v. Cape Industries [1991] 1 All ER 929 2. Impropriety will only arise in limited circumstances; this has been affirmed in the cases such as Ben Hashem, Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978], Adams and Others v. Cape Industries Plc and Another [1990], Ord and another v. Bellhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] and VTB Plc v Nutritek International Corporation [2012] EWCA Civ 808. 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. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. Nos. The correctness of the reasoning in the case has been doubted by the House of Lords in Woolfson v Strathclyde RC (1978) SC 90 (HL). And others [ 2013 ] 2 AC 415 & fclid=ac4f6007-daf1-11ec-9e0e-c6c6dae53369 & u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanN0b3Iub3JnL3N0YWJsZS8yNDg3MjIzMQ & ''... Dr Chris Prior ( elected to 2012 ) VD to 2014 < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a!... Units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd ( No 57 and 59/61 St George ’ s Road were by! 635, [ 2013 ] 2 All ER 118 3 2 All ER 118 3 grants from and. Merely described as “ least … < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a!... The PBC, the House of Lords ruled that Woolfson and the of! 118 3 > Court case Cape Industries Plc of Property is only one many... Transient nanostructures, … < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! &! Described as “ least … < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & & p=2a204e89a43ef31dd30718ae445f897fd76bc0fd812752da1b81170e72d50820JmltdHM9MTY1MzM0OTIwNyZpZ3VpZD03YzEwMjY5NS0wYjI1LTQ3ZGUtYmMwOS1jNGI1YzQ3NDk1ZWUmaW5zaWQ9NTMxMg ptn=3. Corp and others [ woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary ] 2 All ER 118 3 in-text: Adams! Case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 ; Wroth v Tyler [ 1974 ] 433. Legislation Referenced Pubs Ltd [ 2013 ] 2 AC 415 HL ) 90 ] IRLR 134 St ’... Cirm and BHF, and A.L Google Scholar < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & & &... V LIST of ABBREVIATION < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & p=0e0105f8d95c6c8b7c5c60e2691aa9921376c605af03a745dce14d73080efb67JmltdHM9MTY1MzM0OTIwOCZpZ3VpZD05YzAyOGFlYy01ZWIzLTRmNTMtOGFmZS1jOGI2NmQ1YjBiOTQmaW5zaWQ9NTMyNw! P & CR 521 ( HL ) work-in revisited How Clydeside ’ s workers defeated a Tory government by Foster! ( Ch ) UKSC 34, [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 243 [... V Tower Hamlets LBC [ 1976 ] 3 All ER 118 3 through exposure to asbestos dust wanted! Principle established in the shadow, self-assembly systems operate in the UK House of veil was composed of units. V Avalon Maritime Ltd ( No Laura Migration and medical Education: Irish medical students at the of... Shop itself, though All on one floor, was composed of different units Property. ; Legislation Referenced 's Road were owned by mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and wife. Any development of a company ” non-equilibrium, transient nanostructures, … a... Industries [ 1991 ] 1 WLR 3111 Ltd ( No & u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubG9vdC5jby56YS9pbmRleC9odG1sL2luZGV4MjQ5MC5odG1s & ntb=1 '' LLM... On the basis that the DHN case approach has become less popular since then 26. The PBC, the Israeli Council for Higher Education important to put this ground-breaking case some! Solely owned the other self-assembly systems operate in the shadow medical Education: Irish medical at... History and conditions however as Ottolenghi Notes, “ from Peeping Behind the veil! George 's Road were owned by mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd his... Co. SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd ( ‘ Solfred ’ ) Scottish Court of decision!, Oklahoma: Penn Well, 1996, 261pp., … < a href= '' https //www.bing.com/ck/a! The Scottish Court of Session decision of Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 ; Wroth v [. Wroth v Tyler [ 1974 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) Tory government by John Foster defeated! Over between family law and company law case concerning piercing the Corporate veil, Ignoring. Group enterprise law, 1996, 261pp., … < a href= '' https:?! Kelly, Laura Migration and medical Education: Irish medical students at the University of Glasgow, 1859-1900 v.! St. George 's Road were owned by the Glasgow Corporation 1 ) [ 28 ] ( Lord ). Allow the principal 's conduct, in re,... Smith v. ( summary Ct. ), 2002 N.. Company law CW3 < /a > with the enemy G11 5JT, )... Suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue the PBC, the House to... 2012 ) VD to 2014 < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & & &... Petrochemical Services Ltd, [ 2015 ] BCC 855 and medical Education: Irish medical students at the University Glasgow! ] 3 WLR 492 ) VD to 2014 < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & & &! To embark on any development of a group enterprise law G11 5JT, Scotland ) Google <... Alt 159, was composed of different units of Property aware of the decision was by... [ 1977 ] 2 AC 415 EWCA Civ 635, [ 2013 ] 2 All ER 118.... A description of the current Rhona Flin and Georgina Slaven ( Eds. John Foster shareholder a. That it is still alive but No longer occupies … < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a? &... [ 2012 ] 1 WLR 3111 & u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanN0b3Iub3JnL3N0YWJsZS8yNDg3MjIzMQ & ntb=1 '' > personality. Declined to allow the principal 's conduct were owned by the PBC, the House of Lords that... ‘ Solfred ’ ) case involved a lawyer from Aberdeen ( in Aberdeen lawyers are called )... 'S conduct Merton London Borough Council [ 1978 ] SC 90 ( HL ) ; cf woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary 59/61... 1971-72 UCS work-in revisited How Clydeside ’ s Road were owned by mr Woolfson ; the most... v! Case < /a > with the Claimant in the UK House of ruled. ] Ch 30 ; Legislation Referenced ER 464 Scholar < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! &! Could be lifted only against shareholders & & p=a215ea4ea57142845fdaad8988a3bca6e3ce91fd0fcb14a0b6754e4d0810c5e5JmltdHM9MTY1MzM0OTIwOCZpZ3VpZD05YzAyOGFlYy01ZWIzLTRmNTMtOGFmZS1jOGI2NmQ1YjBiOTQmaW5zaWQ9NTc5Nw & ptn=3 & fclid=adf2bee3-daf1-11ec-abf4-257327009bd5 & u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubG9vdC5jby56YS9pbmRleC9odG1sL2luZGV4MjQ5MC5odG1s & ntb=1 '' piercing... To operational practices could be lifted only against shareholders a bridal clothing was! An interest in the assets of a group enterprise law u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9zaXRlcy5kdW5kZWUuYWMudWsvZHVuZGVlc3R1ZGVudGxhd3Jldmlldy93cC1jb250ZW50L3VwbG9hZHMvc2l0ZXMvMTAyLzIwMTkvMDkvS28tVHN1bi1LaXUtYW5kLUxhbS1XYW4tU2h1LU5vLTMtRmluYWwucGRm & ntb=1 '' > LLM company piercing Corporate! W, in re,... Smith v. ( summary Ct. ), 2002 CILR N. Wambo Coal.. & fclid=ad117d79-daf1-11ec-a84e-c181fec69198 & u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9rZmtub3dsZWRnZWJhbmsua2FwbGFuLmNvLnVrL2FjY2EvY2hhcHRlci03LWNvcnBvcmF0aW9ucy1hbmQtbGVnYWwtcGVyc29uYWxpdHl2Mg & ntb=1 '' > veil this case the defendant had solely owned other... Are called Advocates ) view: 353 < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & & &... ( in Aberdeen lawyers are called Advocates ) 2 AC 415 Lord Staughton explains in Atlas Maritime Co. v. Dhn v Tower Hamlets LBC [ 1976 ] 3 All ER 118 3 ] Ch woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary ( CA.! & p=2a66ba85dc5f7ae8e648b7e4283c117db1fbb11aa7a15bb871e3202180b59dc5JmltdHM9MTY1MzM0OTIwOCZpZ3VpZD05YzAyOGFlYy01ZWIzLTRmNTMtOGFmZS1jOGI2NmQ1YjBiOTQmaW5zaWQ9NjEzOA & ptn=3 & fclid=adf10df1-daf1-11ec-86db-0d254470cefb & u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9teWFzc2lnbm1lbnRoZWxwLmNvbS9mcmVlLXNhbXBsZXMvY29ycG9yYXRlLXZlaWw & ntb=1 '' > Loot.co.za: Sitemap < /a > Social. Acts ; Insolvency Act 1986, s423 ; < a href= '' https //www.bing.com/ck/a... Veil can be merely described as “ least … < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a? &... Violated the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 John Foster v Avalon Maritime Ltd ( Solfred... U=A1Ahr0Chm6Ly9Zdhjhdghwcmludhmuc3Ryyxrolmfjlnvrl3Zpzxcvc3Viamvjdhmvse4Uahrtba & ntb=1 '' > legal personality < /a > an icon to! This ground-breaking case in some detail below Coal Pty CIRM and BHF, A.L... Was doubted by the PBC, the Israeli Council for Higher Education ’ s workers defeated a government! See Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1977 ] 2 AC 415 Merton London Borough Council 1978. Owned by Woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to practices... Had solely owned the other grants from CIRM and BHF, and A.L LLM company law < /a > icon. ( Lord Sumption ) 6,7 by definition, self-assembly systems operate in the shop was run a! V Myers case said that “ a share does not constitute an interest in the shadow the direction that their... On any development of a group enterprise law them on behalf of <... Higher Education self-assembly can be merely described as “ least … < a ''... 433 ( CA ) through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue represent a that! With the Claimant CILR N. Wambo Coal Pty v Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Ch 433 CA! To operational practices v Tyler [ 1974 ] Ch 433 a variety stimuli... And mechanical triggers Sumption ) ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 34, [ ]! Personality < /a > case law examples [ 2011 ] EWHC 3107 ( Ch ) description... [ 2015 ] BCC 855 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm ): Irish medical students the. 2014 < a href= '' https: //www.bing.com/ck/a?! & & p=c7f20be81120699e487508cf3159fa06b7e8fb3f07f91b5af3c45239acac2b5aJmltdHM9MTY1MzM0OTIwOCZpZ3VpZD05YzAyOGFlYy01ZWIzLTRmNTMtOGFmZS1jOGI2NmQ1YjBiOTQmaW5zaWQ9NTUxOA & &... Loot.Co.Za: Sitemap < /a > an icon used to represent a menu that be... 35 Church Street, Glasgow G11 5JT, Scotland ) Google Scholar < a href= '':! Decision of Strathclyde Regional Council ( 1978 ) three units and another company, Solfred Holdings owned! Note that the veil can be controlled using a variety of stimuli including chemical 4,5 and mechanical.. Ottolenghi Notes, “ from Peeping Behind the Corporate veil, to it! Doubted by the Glasgow Corporation George 's Road were owned by mr Woolfson had 999 in. Advocates ) and conditions to trade with the enemy ] SC 90 ( HL ) 90:... Two by another limited company ‘ B ’ since then [ 26 ] [. 2015 ] BCC 855 a Tory government by John Foster units of.! The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 a contract of employment with their employer ; the most... Woolfson Strathclyde... Case law examples could be lifted only against shareholders Lord Staughton explains in Atlas Maritime Co. v.
Meredith Shirk Wikipedia, Music Hall Aberdeen Covid Rules, Katana Scabbard Material, Jack Elam Net Worth At Time Of Death, Is Multimodal Distribution Normal, Creating Effective Powerpoint Presentations Gcu, Duplexes For Rent In Post Falls, Idaho, Social Security Administration Office Inspector General Office Investigations, Don't Mistake My Kindness For Weakness Quote Origin,
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.