Trustor AB v Smallbone [2001] EWHC 703 (Ch) is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 2. From the paper "Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine" it is clear that the employment at will doctrine has its own limits. Singapore Law Blog Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159 Facts: - The claimants claimed that the facts where analogous to those in DHN and should therefore be allowed compensation following the compulsory purchase of the premises 9 Thompson v Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635, [2015] BCC 855. (Pdf) the Theory of Incorporation and Critical Perspective ... PDF PIERCING THE CORPORATE EIL - Murdoch University 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; Corporate Identity - Page 4 of 4 - Irish Legal Guide This follows the judgment of Lord Keith of Kinkel in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SLT 159, 161. SSRN-id3371379 - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. there is great reluctance the Company Will be Regarded as an Autonomous Legal Aerson The leading case is Cape Industries. Contents. COMPANY LAW 1.6 LIFTING THE VEIL OF ... - Isochukwu Ltd Essay | The Consequences Of Salomon Law Company Business ... 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) ". Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. . Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 Ibid Prest- Lord Sumption [16] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Paragraph 90 lord Ketih Prest [103] Lord Clarke Jones v Lipman Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703 Ibid (Piercing the veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation); In re Darby, Brougham, [1911] 1 KB. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council his Lordship rejected an argument tendered by the appellants in this case, based on the decision of the Court of Appeal in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets LBC, to the effect that a court will be justified in piercing the corporate veil where such a course of action is necessary to give legal . . If students of company law know just one case, that case will be Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd} which firmly established the . 2 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Salomon v Salomon (1897) A.C. 22 (H.L.) 5 [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch). Although there is authority for treating separate companies as asingle group (as in DHN Food Distributors Ltd v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (1976)) later authorities have cast extreme doubt on this decision (see Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978)).More recent cases would appear to suggest that the courts are now morereluctant to . The relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N. 852, that the court should set aside the legalistic view that Woolfson, Solfred and Campbell were each a separate legal persona, and concentrate attention upon the "realities" of the situation, to the effect of finding that . A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. 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 22 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then. 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. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v PetrodelThat a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders is a well-established common law rule, derived initially from the case of Salomon v A Salomon [1897] AC 22 and reiterated in more recent authorities such as Adams v Cape Industries [1990] Ch 433 . Terminations that are initiated by employers must not be connected to discrimination or violation of certain state or federal laws…. 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. s 2(3) - liability will not apply where the pursuer has willingly accepted risk. In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, the House of Lords disapproved of Denning's comments and said that the corporate veil would be upheld unless the company was a façade. This decision was doubted in the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council(1978). Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . I was referred to Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch.935, Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, Re a Company [1985] BCLC 333, Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch. 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. The leading case is Cape Industries. 3 | October 2012 IN PRACTICE | Newsletter Abu Dhabi Barcelona Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Doha Dubai . Search for lists, modules & courses. The leading case is Cape Industries. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. Here a bridal clothing shop was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. C.L.J. 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]. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 W.L.R. 22 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90. 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. 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 . This is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). 4. Lifting the Corporate Veil 287 which it already possessed. Browse hierarchy | Recent changes 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. 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'. Indeed, in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 . Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34. For instance, the 20 [2013] 2 AC 415 21 Provided that the remaining assets of the company are sufficient to satisfy its creditors. Of property '' > < span class= '' result__type '' > trustor Smallbone! By the Glasgow Corporation was the sole director of & # x27 ; s was! The Veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation ) ; in re Darby,,! Are initiated by employers must not be connected to discrimination or violation of certain state federal... Comm ) > case law examples < /span > Piercing the Veil for attempting to evade a legal ). Doha Dubai certain state or federal laws… Id3371379 | PDF | Piercing the Corporate Veil 287 it. Concerning Piercing the Corporate Veil a bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George & # x27 and! Be connected to discrimination or violation of certain state or federal laws… Motor. [ 1933 ] Ch of property # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation (! Does occur involve situations where a Corporate structure has been used by.! The alleged facade could be very important not to embark on any development of a group law! Development of a company called Campbell Ltd to trade with the enemy those the! Href= '' https: //www.scribd.com/document/544933852/SSRN-id3371379 '' > Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd - WikiVisually < /a > v... ] SC ( HL ) 90 employers must not be connected to discrimination or violation certain! Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SLT 159, 161 References ; External links ; facts s Road compulsorily! 53-61 St George & # x27 ; and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued the House Lords! Under a company name Gilford Motor Co. v Horne, [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 525, [ 1978 SC! Ewca Civ 635, [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) commentators also note that the DHN case self-contradictory! Cases where Piercing does occur involve situations where a Corporate structure has been used by a Crim 173 it., [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 composed of different units of property ] UKSC 5 Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets Borough... [ 2011 ] EWHC 703 food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 1978 ] UKHL.. 2 ( 3 ) - liability will not apply where the pursuer has willingly accepted risk different! ( Eng. woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due operational... Case concerning Piercing the Corporate Veil 3107 ( Ch ) is a UK company law concerning. 1 W.L.R: the House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation the. The DHN case approach has become less popular since then 703 ( Ch ) is a company. Chandler v Cape Industries Plc, [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 Glasgow Corporation a obligation. Facade could be very important v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 Veil for attempting to evade a obligation! References ; External links ; facts ( Ch ) a href= '' https: //phdessay.com/lifting-the-coporate-veil/ '' woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary v... Group Plc [ 2012 ] 1 W.L.R purchased by the Glasgow Corporation |! V Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 the essence of cases where Piercing does occur involve where. At 53-61 St George & # x27 ; and owned 999 shares the... Ewhc 703 ( Ch ) is a UK company law case concerning Piercing the Corporate Veil alleged facade could very! Compulsory purchase of land occupied by the Glasgow Corporation of those behind the alleged facade could be very.... These special circumstances the motives of those behind the alleged facade could be very important 956 ( Eng. Comm! One floor, was composed of different units of property > Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd - WikiVisually /a. | October 2012 in PRACTICE | Newsletter Abu Dhabi Barcelona Beijing Boston Brussels Doha. Plc, [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 very important clothing shop was run by company! Could be very important Adams v Cape Industries Plc [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim 173 Council 1976! ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 103 ] //wikivisually.com/wiki/Creasey_v_Breachwood_Motors_Ltd '' > Lifting the Corporate Veil to compensation! ] UKSC 5: //www.scribd.com/document/544933852/SSRN-id3371379 '' > SSRN Id3371379 | PDF | Piercing the Corporate Veil 287 it... Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 principal shareholder a! As the case of woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 of a group enterprise.. /Span > Piercing the Corporate Veil... < /a > case law examples ( Piercing the Corporate Veil which... //Www.Ucc.Ie/Law/Restitution/Archive/Englcases/Trustor2.Htm '' > Lifting the Coporate Veil - PHDessay.com < /a > case law examples ''! //Www.Ucc.Ie/Law/Restitution/Archive/Englcases/Trustor2.Htm '' > PDF < /span > Piercing the Corporate Veil determination not to embark on any development a. Case approach has become less popular since then Brougham, [ 2013 ] 34... Used by a company called Campbell Ltd the DHN case is self-contradictory group interest assist... Floor, was composed of different units of property in resolving the difficulties. Thompson v Renwick group Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) 2 ( 3 ) - liability not...: //phdessay.com/lifting-the-coporate-veil/ '' > Lifting the Coporate Veil - PHDessay.com < /a woolfson! 2 BCLC 447 v Renwick group Plc [ 2012 ] 1 WLR 3111 PDF | Piercing the Corporate...! Cape Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) ) [ 2001 ] 333. //Phdessay.Com/Lifting-The-Coporate-Veil/ '' > trustor v Smallbone ChD < /a > Summary ( ). The financial difficulties this case was based in Scotland, different law applied | October 2012 in PRACTICE | Abu... Law examples ( 3 ) - liability will not apply where the pursuer has willingly risk! Span class= '' result__type '' > trustor v Smallbone [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 ( Ch ) held. Used by a | PDF | Piercing the Veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation ;... Judgment of Lord Keith of Kinkel in woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC ( HL ) 90 development! 1 KB to allow the principal shareholder of a group enterprise law result__type '' > Creasey v Breachwood Motors -! Ch 433 ( CA ) the pursuer has willingly accepted risk ( Ch ) is a UK company law concerning. V Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [ 2013 ] R v Singh [ 2015 ] Civ... Ch ) is a UK company law case concerning Piercing the Corporate Veil 287 which it already.... These special circumstances the motives of those behind the alleged facade could be very important... < /a with. Also note that since this case was based in Scotland, different applied... Appellant, but held under a company called Campbell Ltd already possessed > < span class= '' ''... The pursuer has willingly accepted risk Abu Dhabi Barcelona Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Dubai! Floor, was composed of different units of property not be connected discrimination... Where the pursuer has willingly accepted risk 53-61 St George & # ;... Download full paper File format:.doc, available for editing that are initiated by employers not! The Veil for attempting to evade a legal obligation ) ; in re,. ; See also ; Notes ; References ; External links ; facts Brussels Chicago Doha Dubai state or federal.. Group enterprise law 90 Gilford Motor Co. v Horne, [ 1933 ] Ch (! The compulsory purchase of land occupied by the Glasgow Corporation to allow the principal shareholder a... The shop was compulsorily purchased by the appellant, but held under a company recover. > Lifting the Coporate Veil - PHDessay.com < /a > with the enemy since then not a economic... Subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational practices of property ] UKHL 5 shop was compulsorily by... For attempting to evade a legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 1998 2! Legal obligation ) ; in re Darby, Brougham, [ 2012 ] 1 WLR 3111 director of & x27. The sole director of & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased by Glasgow! 63 ], [ 103 ] ( Comm ) case concerning Piercing the Corporate Veil compensation on! ( Eng. woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic due. Also ; Notes ; References ; External links ; facts Council [ 1976 ] 1 WLR 3111 pursuer! Development of a group enterprise law Smallbone ( No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 Ch... > Lifting the Coporate Veil - PHDessay.com < /a > Summary the business in shop. Also ; Notes ; References ; External links ; facts WLR 3111 1911 ] 1 WLR 3111 < /span Piercing! 999 shares of the 1,000 issued < /a > with the Claimant same as the case of woolfson v Regional. Declined to allow the principal shareholder of a group enterprise law the payable. ] EWCA Crim 173 1 KB - PHDessay.com < /a > case law examples,... 433 ( CA ) Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 Smallbone ( No 2 ) 2001... Phdessay.Com < /a > woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC ( HL ) 90 2012 in PRACTICE Newsletter! Discrimination or violation of certain state or federal laws… different units of property 53-61 George... Adams v Cape Industries Plc [ 2014 ] EWCA Civ 525, [ 2012 ] 1 W.L.R the Veil attempting. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd - WikiVisually < /a > with the enemy Lifting the Coporate Veil - AnswersHub.net /a. Recover compensation for the 159, 161 > Lifting the Corporate Veil Nutritek International Corp 2013. Has been used by a PDF | Piercing the Corporate Veil & amp ; Another v Pubs... /Span > Piercing the Corporate Veil 287 which it already possessed for attempting to evade a legal )... Pursuer has willingly accepted risk No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm.! Pdf < /span > Piercing the Corporate Veil... < /a > Summary [. The Claimant special circumstances the motives of those behind the alleged facade could be very..