Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Wilberforce,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Russell of Killowen,Lord Keith of Kinkel |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] UKHL J0215-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 4. |
| Date | 15 February 1978 |
[1978] UKHL J0215-2
Lord Wilberforce
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Russell of Killowen
Lord Keith of Kinkel
House of Lords
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.
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. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
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. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed.
My Lords,
This is an appeal against an interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session affirming the decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland upon a question relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land.
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. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. 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. Nos. 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. 53/55 were owned by the second-named appellant Solfred Holdings Ltd. ("Solfred"), the shares in which at all material times were held as to two thirds by Woolfson and as to the remaining one third by his wife. 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 issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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. 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. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. 57 St. George's Road. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. 53/55 St. George's Road. Various...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest
...to the court to 'pierce the veil'. Thus it noted (paragraph 48) the unanimous (albeit obiter) view of the House of Lords in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SLT 159, at 161, that 'it is appropriate to pierce the veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is......
- Law Kam Loy v Boltex Sdn Bhd
-
Lethe Estate Ltd and Great River Rafting and Plantation Tour Ltd v Jamaica Public Services Company Ltd
...the court treating Mr. Tulloch and the first claimant as being one and the same. 349 In Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC (HL) 90, Lord Keith, observed, obiter, that “it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a ......
-
The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another
...(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 1978 SLT 159 at 161; Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law 5th E ed (by LCB Gower) at 124-34; Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Lt......
-
Prest Piercing The Corporate Veil? Or Going Around?
...Limited [1897] AC 22, Lord Sumption analysed attempts to pierce the corporate veil, referencing Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90, which suggested that there was a basis for piercing the corporate veil "only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere......
-
Piercing The Corporate Veil Recent Developments
...AC 22 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. 433 VTB Capital v Nutritek [2011] EWHC 3107 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.C. (H.L.) 90 Gilford Motor Company v Horne [1933] Ch 935 Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 F......
-
(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd
...of recovery-permitting singleeconomic entity doctrine.50 n 32 above, 860 per Lord Denning MR.51 Woolfson vStrathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC (HL), 90, 96 per Lord Keith. Lord Keith did not,however, overrule DHN Food outright: ibid.52 Win Line (UK) Ltd vMasterpart (Singapore) Pte Ltd [1999......
-
Payment of Another's Debt, Unjustified Enrichment and ad hoc Agency
...for piercing the corporate veil. 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 ......
-
THE NEW ERA OF CORPORATE VEIL-PIERCING
...Ltd[2013] 3 WLR 1 at [35]. 10Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] 3 WLR 1 at [35]. 11 See Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] SC (HL) 90 at 96. 12Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] 3 WLR 1 at [28]. 13Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] 3 WLR 1 at [35]. 14[1933] Ch 935. 15[1962]......
-
Piercing the corporate veil – old metaphor, modern practice?
...under the general law disregard the separate legal personality of a company if he considered that a company in which one spouse was 8 1978 SC (HL) 90. © Juta and Company (Pty) 9PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL – OLD METAPHOR, MODERN PRACTICE?interested owned property which should be taken into a......