Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council

Facts

Land was owned by Woolfson and a company, while the business on it was run by another company he controlled. The land was compulsorily acquired and compensation for business disturbance was claimed.

Issue

Could the companies and Woolfson be treated as one for compensation?

Held

No. The House of Lords held the veil could be lifted only where special circumstances show the company is a mere facade concealing the true facts, and there were none.

Principle

Related companies and their controller are not treated as one merely for convenience.

Why it matters

It doubted DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.