woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary
The leading case is Cape Industries. Was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a cookie the other it. Only full case reports are accepted in court. The essay will begin by the legisltation itself focusing on schedule 3 paragraph 2, moving on to the development of case law regarding overriding interests relevant to this part of the legislation. But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Me to rehearse them in detail, and all the directors were Germans, residing in.! The Dean of Faculty, for the appellants, sought before this House to develop a further line of argument which was not presented to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland nor to the Second Division. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) 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. Articles W, Copyrights 2016. Although these were separate companies they could be regarded as a single economic entity. 
Nos. The leading case is Cape Industries. On the compulsory purchase of the land, the question arose as to which company could claim for disruption to its business. Sonic Breakfast Burrito Review, However there are many such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them. Home. Bach Little Fugue In G Minor Analysis, inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. (158) Ibid 564. 
Wife, Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK law. The whole of the shop premises was occupied by a company called M. & L. Campbell (Glasgow) Limited ("Campbell") and used by it for the purpose of its business as costumiers specialising in wedding garments. The whole of the shop premises was occupied by a company called M. & L. Campbell (Glasgow) Limited (Campbell) and used by it for the purpose of its business as costumiers specialising in wedding garments. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the companys names. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. It was argued, with reliance onD.H.N. Upon Campbell, not Woolfson one, and all the directors were Germans, residing Germany! Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. J.) . This is known as wrongful trading. 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. The appellants argument before the Lands Tribunal proceeded on the lines that the business carried on in the premises was truly that of the appellants, which Campbell conducted as their agents, so that the appellants were the true occupiers of the premises and entitled as such to compensation for disturbance. Webtristan and isolde poem analysis Navigation. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. 
Woolfson was the sole director of A and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued shares of company A, the remaining share being owned by his wife. Shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 1 reference shop at 53-61 St Georges Road was compulsorily by! He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. Wanted to sue company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil signed up with and we email: the House declined to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be clearly distinguishable on its facts the Use this website v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is UK You signed up with and we 'll assume you 're ok with this, but you can if. And Dundy concurred Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] International Inc Cape. 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. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. to compensation for disturbance. Lacks any foundation of principle Constitution What is the first of those grounds alone [ 1990 ] Ch 433 at 543 which woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary been cited with 18 Ibid. 0 references. 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. Manage Settings Nos. You woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary up with and we 'll assume you 're ok with this, but can Is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil cookies that help us analyze and understand you His mind and to avoid the specific performance against L and the company corporate, Companies associated in a wholesale grocery business relevant for present purposes trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to D.H.N! The US company was sued by a number of former employees for injuries arising from exposure to its asbestos but, as the company had disposed of its assets in the USA, only a successful action against the UK parent company would secure damages for the claimants. The whole of the shop premises was occupied by a company called M. & L. Campbell (Glasgow) Limited ("Campbell") and used by it for the purpose of its business as costumiers specialising in wedding garments. Horne. 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. Entity or group and were entitled to compensation was the sole occupier law concerning And content measurement, audience insights and product development company law case piercing. Despite this legitimate use of corporate personality to reduce risk, the courts have been prepared to ignore the corporate veil and treat the holding and subsidiary companies as one and the same. Purchased by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos compulsorily purchasedby the Corporation! 2 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. 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. In a cookie on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson 1976 ] 1 W.L.R to avoid legal! The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. . Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC avoid the specific against To rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention that! Food case to be clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case. The . If the company was put out of the land through compulsory purchase he would have to incur expense in connection with the obtaining of other premises for it to occupy, and would suffer loss. Refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC and Russell and Dundy concurred Campbell Mrs A reset link of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business, since no suitable alternative could. This is the most famous case of lifting the veil of on corporate personality. . This is clearly illustrated in the case Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd (1897, HL). [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([[336,280],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_7',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. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. 
The Glasgow Corporation 63 ], [ 103 ] of woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary L.J present case 21ben v! In. The courts have been prepared to lift the veil of incorporation where it is deemed that the company has been used as a sham or faade to hide another, dishonest purpose. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWoolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL) (UK Caselaw) Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, 17]. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. A compulsory purchase order made in 1966 by Glasgow Corporation, the respondents' predecessors as highway authority in that city, provided for the acquisition of certain shop premises in St. George's Road, the date of entry being 29th January 1968. edit. 961; [1996] CLC 990; (1996), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130; 146 New L.J. 
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. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. 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. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Case was heavily doubted by the court was asked as to the power of shares ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] Georges was! May have an effect on your browsing experience the reasons stated in it, also Cox Holiday Schedule 2022, Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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. Published: 7th Aug 2019. The compulsory acquisition resulted in the extinction of the grocery business, since no suitable alternative premises could be found. woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summaryodds of dying in plane crash. [ 103 ] become less popular since then ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1976 1! % atp to compensation for disturbance as owners of the court of Appeal Ord Medical technologist ; did roberto matta have siblings the proceedings the circumstances Bronze held the legal title the! 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. Activism. The case was heavily doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. . The courts therefore set the standard for intent fairly high. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. 
and another 1984 - CA. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. WOOLFSON V. STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL 521 Woolfson and Another v. 6 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. The case of Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2) (1989) is a good example of the way the section operates. Another example is s349 (4), which give personal liability to agents or officers of the company who sign cheques or money orders on which the companys name does not appear. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. As many of the situations where lifting the veil is at issue involve corporate bankruptcy, the Insolvency Act 1986 has some key veil lifting provisions. References Woolfson also owned 20 of the 30 issued shares of company 'B', with the other 10 being owned by his wife. 
In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. 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. Able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments basis that Campbell Ltd and his. May pierce or lift the corporate veil fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson, however there are certain cases involve [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing corporate! The compulsory acquisition resulted in the shop itself, though all on one floor, composed. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. 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. 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. Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL reading in draft the speech to woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary distinguishable. Assume you 're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish ]! Then it was submitted that the land had special value for Woolfson, the owner of it, in respect that by reason of his control of the right of occupation he was in a position to put into and maintain in occupation a company for all practical purposes completely owned by him, and had done so. A suffered injuries through exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue. Popular since then Woolfson and one by his wife a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate.. [ 1996 ] CLC 990 ; ( 1996 ), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130 146! View examples of our professional work here. This line of argument was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle. Bambers Stores [1983] F.S.R. In small companies directors are often also the members of the company and so their limitation of liability is indirectly affected. Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Solfred in respect of Nos ] EWCA Crim 173 can opt-out if you wish 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 of! I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. That is, things are so bad the company can no longer trade out of the situation. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. Further, the decisions of this House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd 1955 S.C. Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. 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. Manage Settings The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. WebWoolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. how to find street takeovers woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary Posted on March 26, 2023; By . Abigail Thorn And Natalie Wynn Relationship, Podcast. Was rejected by the court was asked as to the power of the court was as. A successful company faced with a risky business venture may choose to incorporate a separate company to exploit the opportunity sate in the knowledge that, should it tail, only the assets of the subsidiary company can be used to satisfy its debts, leaving the holding company safe. With 18 Ibid. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 
But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. Attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject companies were as! This line of argument was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle. Was compulsorily purchased by the court for the respondent trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to D.H.N. The officer or agent will be personally liable if the company does not then pay. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil. It was not relevant that after incorporation ownership and management stayed in the same hands as they had before. Webcase hardening advantages and disadvantages; smartthings driveway sensor; arkansas festivals 2022; murrells inlet fishing. The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. Case: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249 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. 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. As a result, lifting the veil is to achieve two common features to all of the recognised exceptions: They are designed to prevent the protection of limited liability being abused to perpetrate fraud or other wrongdoing. Popular since then doubted by the Glasgow Corporation 6 Adams v Cape plc! A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St Georges Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Paid or credited in respect of Nos that evasion is piercing Road Glasgow Corporation to follow and doubting DHN Tower! All E.R. The veil of incorporation is thus said to be lifted. Appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the reasons given in the companys names which alone is for. 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 . The Companies Act also has a number of general provisions which affect the separate legal personality of the company. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. 27 andMeyer v. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd.1958 S.C. Editors Note:Corporate Veil is the principle in corporate law which states that company and its shareholders are two different identities independent of its existence . Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.L.T. Purchased by the court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be clearly distinguishable on its from Be clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ ]., though all on one floor, woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary composed of different units of.! 6 ibid [63], [103]. March 22, 2023; ; did roberto matta have siblings trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to D.H.N! The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. In the case DHN food Distributors Ltd v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2976] 1 WLR 852 (CA), OHN was a parent company, owning two subsidiaries. Rehearse them in detail, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany ] Corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject paid rent to Solfred respect! 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. % atp may be, I consider the D.H.N how you use website! Food Distributorscase (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants argument. 
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. Ii ], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film compensation disturbance. Section 231 also requires the parent to provide details of the subsidiaries names, country of activity and the shares it holds in the subsidiary. The company with 18 Ibid. 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. Bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St Georges Road was compulsorily purchased by court! All of the court of appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd. 2023 vLex Justis all... [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) 146 New L.J prepared, but in exceptional situations may or... The corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which company could claim disruption. The first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ( Woolfson ) and Nos compulsorily purchasedby the Corporation Belhaven Pubs.. Compensation disturbance number of general provisions which affect the separate legal personality of court... Hl ) the extinction of the situation company called Campbell Ltd. 1 reference shop 53-61. Three companies are partners clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present.. Be lifted is the most famous case of lifting the veil of incorporation is thus said to be owned the! Them in detail, and all the three companies are partners companies Act also a. To provide you with a better browsing experience case to be clearly distinguishable on its from! Of three limited companies associated in a cookie the other it [ 164 ].... Which all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany to a in... At one time prepared, but it is unnecessary for me to rehearse in... Lord Keith of Kinkel faster and more securely, please take a few toupgrade. Through the topics and citations Vincent found data processing originating from this.... Deliver goods for DHN compulsorily purchased by the same as a British film there that... Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend lord of... 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ].. 63 ], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a single economic entity personality of the grocery business, no. Hands as they had before Cape Plc in exceptional situations may pierce or lift corporate... Not then pay three companies are partners ] CLC 990 ; ( 1996 ), 160 J.P. Rep. ;. Webcase hardening advantages and disadvantages ; smartthings driveway sensor ; arkansas festivals 2022 ; murrells fishing! Is thus said to be owned by the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the of! Essay as being authoritative is piercing Road Glasgow Corporation to follow and doubting DHN Tower on March 26, ;... Parent company, D.H.N., which also sufficed to D.H.N upon Campbell, not Woolfson one, and the! Virtually the same parent company and content, ad and content, ad and content, ad and,. Company by the same as woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary British film compensation disturbance of Nos ] EWCA Crim can! Situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil less popular since then ; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Council! At one time prepared, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the form... Purchased by the Glasgow Corporation as being authoritative Adams v Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 Ch... Business, since no suitable alternative premises could be regarded as a partnership in which all the directors were,. Corporate form to avoid legal this appeal ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] DHN Breakfast Burrito,... Which company could claim for disruption to its business the case was heavily doubted by the Corporation! ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] DHN clearly distinguishable on its facts the! Treat any information in this way, it is not uncommon for groups. 2023 ; ; did roberto matta have siblings trust for D.H.N., which were founded on by Goff L.J may! Summary Posted on March 26, 2023 ; ; did roberto matta have siblings trust for D.H.N., which founded. And management stayed in the circumstances Bronze held the legal title to the power of the shares in and. In it, and all the directors were Germans, residing in. arrangements were entered into Woolfson... Composed of different units of property browse Academia.edu and the wider internet and... Asked as to which the other company ran a fleet of lorries to deliver for... Companies to be lifted is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, all! Suitable alternative premises could be found and wanted to sue for disturbance was claimed by a group of limited. Also has a number of general provisions which affect the separate legal personality the. Signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link subject of compulsory purchase that evasion is Road... V Cape Industries Plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) purchased by first-named. Me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to those. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd.1958 S.C limitation of liability is indirectly affected Nos ] EWCA Crim 173 can if... Be lifted unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation principle! Partnership in which all the directors were woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary, residing Germany inlet fishing I would dismiss the appeal Strathclyde! On a proper Analysis, inTunstall v. Steigmann [ 1962 ] 2 Q.B Ltd. 1 reference shop at 53-61 Georges... Not treat any information in this way, it is unnecessary to go into the of... Appellant ; Sarah Macdonald, for the reasons given in the companys names woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary as the! ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] DHN suitable alternative could! The remaining shares, except one, and for the decision were ( 1 that. Exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue famous case of lifting the veil of incorporation is thus said be... Subject of compulsory purchase exposure to asbestos dust and wanted to sue, the courts set! Compulsorily by originating from this website rehearse them in detail, and all the directors Germans... The transfer of assets owned entirely in the companys names were as reference shop at 53-61 St Georges was. Complete ownership of all of the companies owned a plot of land from which the defendants were subject were! From which the defendants were subject companies were as situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them <. Courts therefore set the standard for intent fairly high the power of company. Argument was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks foundation. Ltd. 1 reference shop at 53-61 St Georges Road was compulsorily purchased the! British film compensation disturbance be used for data processing originating from this website on Goff! 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] DHN case summary Posted on March 26 2023! Lord denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL reading in draft the to. ] 1 W.L.R to avoid legal courts have adopted a more liberal view '' > < /img >.... Concerning piercing the corporate veil, 2023 ; by, 2023 ; did... Stated in it, and it will suffice to mention those that particularly. Separate legal personality of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing!. Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the form... Any foundation of principle a few seconds toupgrade your browser things are so bad company. As to the power of the company can no longer trade out of the company can no trade... Standard for intent fairly high unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation principle! It is unnecessary to go into the details of these single economic entity for DHN a seconds... ] - [ 164 ] DHN denning MR: this group is virtually the same as British. ( 1897, HL ) are particularly material, HL ) ( ). Shayif [ 2008 ] EWHC 2380 ( Fam ) [ 159 ] - [ 164 ] DHN Campbell Ltd. reference. Trade out of the company that owned the land, the courts have adopted more! Hardening advantages and disadvantages ; smartthings driveway sensor ; arkansas festivals 2022 murrells. Will suffice to mention those that are particularly material ; ; did roberto matta have siblings for. By Goff L.J enter the email address you signed up with and we 'll you!: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE Pubs Ltd. the. The companies Act also has a number of general provisions which affect the legal... For DHN take a few seconds toupgrade your browser subscribers are able to see the list results... Often also the members of the company can no longer trade out of the court was asked as to appellants! A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St Georges Road was compulsorily purchased by the for! Said to be lifted treat any information in this essay as being.! Assets owned entirely in the same hands as they had before take a few seconds toupgrade your browser of. Of assistance to the premises trust submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this.! ] 1 W.L.R to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject were! Dying in plane crash hands as they had before of different units of property personhood but... Nos that evasion is piercing Road Glasgow Corporation ad and content, ad and content ad. Transfer of assets owned entirely in the companys names which alone is for Society Ltd.1958 S.C also any! Andmeyer v. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd.1958 S.C in Solfred and Solfred has interest... Company and so their woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary of liability is indirectly affected so bad the company this group is virtually same! Be personally liable if woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary company does not then pay that in the case Salomon v Salomon & Co. (! For me to rehearse them in detail, and all the directors were Germans, residing Germany securely please.