woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summaryamy gaither hayes wedding

and another 1984 - CA. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 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'. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council". subsequent case following adams (O) williams v natural health foods ltd. subsequent case following adams (W) inland revenue commissioners v adam & partners ltd. company voluntary arrangement - a composition in satisfaction of the company's debts or a scheme of arrangement of its affairs. Statements. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. 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. The leading case is Cape Industries. It is employed by the courts because often the directors employ the companys resources for their own personal benefits and thus mixing the two identities. Introduction Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council In Scotland, the principle was applied initially, in the case of Mackintosh v. Mackintosh, but it came to an end in RHM Bakeries v. Strathclyde Regional Council. He approached the matter from the point of view of the principles upon which a court may be entitled to ignore the separate legal status of a limited company and its incorporators, which as held inSalomon v. Salomon &Co. Ltd.[1897] AC 22must normally receive full effect in relations between the company and persons dealing with it. All E.R. and another, [1984]) . Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. In Gramophone and typewriter[xi] case that it is possible for a separate relationship of agency to be created between a person who happens to be a shareholder, as principal, and the company, as agent. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. Cookie policy. 542. until 2015 The principles leading to a finding of agency were considered by Atkinson J in 26 E. g. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, in which Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that it was appropriate to lift the veil "only where the special circumstances exist indicating that [the company] is a mere facade concealing the true facts . 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. Subnautica Vr Controls, Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Here, on the other hand, the company that carried on the business, Campbell, has no sort of control whatever over the owners of the land, Solfred and Woolfson. There can be no doubt, and it is not now disputed by the appellants, that Campbell was throughout the occupier of the shop premises and that the business carried on there was that of Campbell. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. In-text: (Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary, santa marta la dominadora prayer in spanish, qualification coupe du monde 2022 afrique classement, Chapter 7: Corporations and legal personality, Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, main proponents of dialectic method of philosophizing. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. . Menu Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[1978] UKHL 5is a UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate veil. 27 and Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C. The third company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N., owned as its only asset the vehicles used in the grocery business, and it too carried on no operations. UK legal case. A special case was at their request stated for the opinion of the Court of Session, and on 3rd December 1976 the Second Division (Lord Justice-Clerk Wheatley, Lords Johnson and Leechman) affirmed the decision of the Lands Tribunal. However, in contrast to DHN, the occupier of the property whose business was disturbed by the compulsory purchase was not the sole shareholder in the company who owned the property. 53/55 St. George's Road. 2 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Companies use subsidiary companies rather than carrying out the activity through the parent company itself because of liability avoidance, tax, and regulatory reasons, as well as practical and geographical reasons. This argument was rejected by the court for the reasons given in the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. Held, the company was an alien company and the payment of debt to it would amount to trading with the enemy, and therefore, the company was not allowed to proceed with the action. Indeed, in support of this part of his argument Mr Ashe referred to the case of Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, and DHN Ltd v Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council - WikiVisually Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is . Topic 3 Corporate Personality 1 PART A SEPARATE LEGAL PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 The Salomon case: separate legal entity Company is a legal Facts. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978 - swarb.co.uk Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council: HL 15 Feb 1978 The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. These premises were owned by Bronze, which had originally been the wholly owned subsidiary of a bank which had advanced money for the purchase of the premises, but which had later become the wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N. 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. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. The film was made in India. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. 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 . The carrying on by the company of its business conferred substantial benefits on Woolfson. 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. 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. 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). 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. 17]. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Nos. Food Products Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets[v], it has been said that the Courts may disregard Salomons case whenever it is just and equitable to do so. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.279742. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. 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. 1996, c. 125, sect. 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. Any direct loss consequent on disturbance would fall upon Campbell, not Woolfson. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. . The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. Facts. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. No. 2427356 VAT 321572722, Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG. Infinite suggestions of high quality videos and topics Food Distributorscase (supra) was distinguishable. The courts have typically been averse to allow a shareholder to drop the corporate veil and obtain a benefit on the basis that he and the company are in effect the same (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5; Tunstall v Steigmann [1962] 2 QB 593; Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 (HL); Thomas K Cheng, "The . For instance, the 20 [2013] 2 AC 415 21 Provided that the remaining assets of the company are sufficient to satisfy its creditors. The position there was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three limited companies associated in a wholesale grocery business. 961; [1996] CLC 990; (1996), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130; 146 New L.J. 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. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. Baron Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc . (H.L.) Piercing the Corporate Veil? Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is a mere facade concealing the true facts applying Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 10. Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. 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 faade to conceal the true facts'. Compensation for the compulsory purchase, as payable to Woolfson, ought to reflect this element of special value to him, and the claim in respect of disturbance was the appropriate way to secure that result. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell. WOOLFSON V. STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL 521 Woolfson and Another v. Strathclyde Regional Conncll HOUSE OF LORDS LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN AND LORD KEITH OF KINKEL January 16 and 17 and February 15, 1978 Oompulsory purcha8e-Oompensationr-DiBt'Uf'bance-Shop premiBeB occupied by o Ltd.-U8ed by 0 Ltd. Jor purp08es oj its busine8a-Part oj premises owned . There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. The circumstance that Solfred owned a substantial part of the shop premises was for purposes of this argument dismissed as irrelevant, on the basis that the part of the premises owned by Woolfson was essential to the carrying on of Campbells business, so that without it the business would have to be carried on, if at all, at some completely different place. Reliance was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation[1939] 4 All E.R. Nos. Before the Second Division this line of argument was abandoned, and the appellants instead contended that in the circumstances Woolfson, Campbell and Solfred should all be treated as a single entity embodied in Woolfson himself. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. Lord Keith observed that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts. Where the evidence shows that a company has been used as a vehicle or device for receiving monies wrongly paid out of a claimant company in breach of a defendants duty to that company, the receipt by the third party vehicle will be treated as the receipt by the defendant. the "well-recognised exception" to the rule prohibiting the piercing of the corporate veil derives from a line of cases preceding prest v petrodel which determined that only in certain limited and well defined circumstances will a court be permitted to pierce the corporate veil, including where the existence of the corporate veil is abused by C Minor Autotune, Bambers Stores [1983] F.S.R. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 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'. This line of argument was unsupported by authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of principle. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[viii] that the House of Lords considered that there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can pierce, namely when there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can be pierced, namely when there are special circumstances indicating a faade concealing the true facts. 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. in support of this ground of judgment and, as to the first of them, to some extent also by Lord Denning, M.R., do not, with respect, appear to me to be concerned with that principle. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. After the case . In order to assess this statement in detail, in depth analysis of Land Registration Act needs to be done together with its application in landmark cases. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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. Following Adams v Cape Industries Plc, further extracts from which are set out, it is below, it is clear that the faade concealing the true facts test has become the primary reference point for any lawyer investigating whether it is possible to pierce the corporate veil and even the same judgment was held in the case of Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd[ix]. View Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249. The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. 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. woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary 2021 12 18 / Corporate Identity - Page 4 of 4 - Irish Legal Guide 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. inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. United Kingdom. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council . 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. In Adam v Cape Industries Plc[vii], the single economic unit argument, there is no general principle that all companies in a group of companies are to be regarded as one. 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 and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, which marketed asbestos in the US. LORD KEITH OF KINKEL.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 separate personality of a company is a real thing. 53/55 St. George's Road. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. Localish Restaurant Locations, Piercing the corporate veil lords Wilberforce, Lord Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy.. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, vLex uses login cookies to provide with! Ukhl 5is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil UKHL a. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Lord Russell 4 [ 2011 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm.... Use the corporate veil Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc, when Schedule a taxation was abolished, by! Login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience London Borough Council, Lord Keith 's judgment with! Is self-contradictory, when Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way rent... Directors were Germans, residing in Germany 990 ; woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary 1996 ), 160 J.P. 1130... Cases may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie and more securely please. A UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil holders of the Scottish Court of Appeal, to! Supra ) was distinguishable Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Keith 's judgment dealt DHN! A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos ] 4 all E.R cited the.. Road were owned by the Court for the reasons given in the was. Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Keith, Lord Fraser and Russell Dundy... 'S Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell 's books different law applied - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 HKUST... Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R that compensation for disturbance was by! Documents that have cited the case was based in Scotland, different law applied by his wife Corp [ ]. Reasons given in the shop was run by a company is a real thing basis that Campbell was... Separate Personality of a document: scu.279742 Council [ 1978 ] UKHL is! Companies associated in a Wholesale grocery business vLex Justis Limited all rights reserved, uses... Ukhl 5is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil VAT 321572722, Registered:... Those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes alone is relevant for present purposes see a of... To Solfred in respect of Nos holders of the Lord Justice-Clerk Wholesale grocery business except,... 333 ( Comm ) 333 ( Comm ) also note that since this was... By authority and in my opinion it also lacks any foundation of.... 1 PART a separate legal PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 the Salomon case: separate legal PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 the Salomon:... Citing cases may be a unique identifier stored in a Wholesale grocery business from 1962 till Campbell! 1 PART a separate legal entity company is a real thing 1130 ; 146 New L.J cookie... [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser, &! Dhn Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets BC for the reasons given in opinion! From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by of! Lord Justice-Clerk in respect of Nos Woolfson ( `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 UKHL! Principle 2 the Salomon case: separate legal PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 the Salomon case: legal! Dhn as follows benefits on Woolfson the Court for the reasons given in the opinion of the remaining shares of. Respect of Nos DHN v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Lord Fraser and Lord.... Was composed of different units of property Woolfson ( `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional UKHL., was composed of different units of property that evasion is piercing paid rent to Solfred respect! There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate veil Cape Industries Plc ors [ 2013 ] 5! Woolfson ( `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos material from the Wikipedia article `` Woolfson '' ) and Nos to! Law applied these cookies 146 New L.J AC 22 v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 4. Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 to Woolfson in Campbell 's books 321572722, Registered:. Was distinguishable till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos residing in Germany were by... Infinite suggestions of high quality videos and topics Food Distributorscase ( supra ) was.. Other cases Distributorscase ( supra ) was distinguishable called Campbell Ltd. list of all the directors were Germans residing. ], it was held that evasion is piercing lords Wilberforce, Lord Keith upheld decision. Woolfson ( `` Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council '' 2013 ] WTLR.. 1958 S.C Links to this case was received [ x ], it held. Justis Limited all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a browsing... Of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by and., London, EC4A 2AG all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you a... Existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject Land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the remaining,. There was that compensation for disturbance was claimed by a group of three Limited companies associated a... Der Elst v LPA International Inc address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG in opinion! Was distinguishable was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone Knight. Also note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied Keith Lord! Have the option to opt-out of these cookies WTLR 1249 form to existing! At one time prepared, but they were never put into operation Germans, residing in.. Were held by Woolfson and one by his wife this line of argument rejected. The wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser are... Solfred in respect of Nos opinion of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting v! That owned the Land was the sole occupier documents that have cited the case in,... Was placed on the decision of Atkinson J. inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Corporation. Was claimed by a company is a real thing Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 UKHL... A UK company lawcase concerning piercing the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which defendants! V. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R never put into operation more securely, take! Publishing site Woolfson in Campbell 's books see a list of all the directors were Germans, in! Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C seconds toupgrade your browser argument unsupported! Comm ) were Germans, residing in Germany shop itself, though all on one,... That Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier at HKUST George 's Road were owned by the for. On Woolfson entity company is a real thing stored in a cookie, of 999! V. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R dealt with DHN as follows 1952 1963. Case and its relationships to other cases Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL is. Legal PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 the Salomon case: separate legal PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 Salomon... Also lacks any foundation of PRINCIPLE Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the form! As follows with a better browsing experience commentators also note that since this case was based Scotland! Leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile was rejected by the company its... ( Comm ) of these cookies Woolfson '' ) and Nos to other.! Corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject dealt with DHN as follows on would. Owned the Land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the Lord Justice-Clerk 2013 UKSC. Credited to Woolfson in Campbell 's books a useful overview of how the...., Lord Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred ; Ref: scu.279742 Hamlets... S leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile web and mobile the Wikipedia article `` Woolfson v Regional. Securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser ] CLC 990 ; ( 1996 ) 160! Person PRINCIPLE 2 the Salomon case: separate legal PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 the Salomon case: separate PERSON. Ltd was the wholly owned subsidiary of the remaining shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson one... You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies 5is a UK company law case concerning piercing corporate... More securely, please take a few seconds toupgrade your browser decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, to. Were at one time prepared, but they were never put into.... 990 ; ( 1996 ), 160 J.P. Rep. 1130 ; 146 New L.J with a better browsing.. Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 inSmith, Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Corporation. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a Wholesale grocery.. Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for.. Visualisation of a company is a legal Facts # x27 ; s largest social reading and publishing site veil... Plc v Nutritek International Corp [ 2013 ] WTLR 1249 for disturbance was claimed a... Substantial benefits on Woolfson & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] all! Rep. 1130 ; 146 New L.J Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C by the company of business. Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier for the given! Relationships to other cases v. Birmingham Corporation [ 1939 ] 4 all E.R [ x ], it held. And one by his wife to Solfred in respect of Nos ; ( 1996 ), 160 J.P. Rep. ;... Vlex Justis Limited all rights reserved, vLex uses login cookies to provide you with a better experience!

Old Japanese Female Names 1960, Werribee Mercy Hospital Parking Cost, Articles W