woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary

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. 852, that the court should set aside the legalistic view that Woolfson, Solfred and Campbell were each a separate legalpersona, and concentrate attention upon the realities of the situation, to the effect of finding that Woolfson was the occupier as well as the owner of the whole premises. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. Resource Type Case page Court 1540 Date 15 February 1978 Jurisdiction of court United Kingdom Where Reported 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]. Having examined the facts of the instant case, the Lord Justice-Clerk reached the conclusion that they did not substantiate but negatived the argument advanced in support of the unity proposition and that the decision in theD.H.N. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. 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. In-text: (Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978]) Your Bibliography: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] EGLR 2, p.19. No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Darg v Commissioner Of Police for the Metropolis: QBD 31 Mar 2009, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, AA000772008 (Unreported): AIT 30 Jan 2009, AA071512008 (Unreported): AIT 23 Jan 2009, OA143672008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Apr 2009, IA160222008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2009, OA238162008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Feb 2009, OA146182008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Jan 2009, IA043412009 (Unreported): AIT 18 May 2009, IA062742008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Feb 2009, OA578572008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Jan 2009, IA114032008 (Unreported): AIT 19 May 2009, IA156022008 (Unreported): AIT 11 Dec 2008, IA087402008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Dec 2008, AA049472007 (Unreported): AIT 23 Apr 2009, IA107672007 (Unreported): AIT 25 Apr 2008, IA128362008 (Unreported): AIT 25 Nov 2008, IA047352008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, OA107472008 (Unreported): AIT 24 Nov 2008, VA419232007 (Unreported): AIT 13 Jun 2008, VA374952007 and VA375032007 and VA375012007 (Unreported): AIT 12 Mar 2008, IA184362007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Aug 2008, IA082582007 (Unreported): AIT 19 Mar 2008, IA079732008 (Unreported): AIT 12 Nov 2008, IA135202008 (Unreported): AIT 21 Oct 2008, AA044312008 (Unreported): AIT 29 Dec 2008, AA001492008 (Unreported): AIT 16 Oct 2008, AA026562008 (Unreported): AIT 19 Nov 2008, AA041232007 (Unreported): AIT 15 Dec 2008, IA023842006 (Unreported): AIT 12 Jun 2007, HX416262002 (Unreported): AIT 22 Jan 2008, IA086002006 (Unreported): AIT 28 Nov 2007, VA46401-2006 (Unreported): AIT 8 Oct 2007, AS037782004 (Unreported): AIT 14 Aug 2007, HX108922003 and Prom (Unreported): AIT 17 May 2007, IA048672006 (Unreported): AIT 14 May 2007. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) During the First World War, the English company commenced action for recovery of a trade debt. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Click here to start building your own bibliography. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. 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. 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. A critical analysis on Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, Lord Wilberforce,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Russell of Killowen,Lord Keith of Kinkel, Journal of Corporate Commercial Law & Practice Nbr. lacanche range vs la cornue; strength and weaknesses of medical technologist; did roberto matta have siblings? But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. . This followed the refusal by the court to allow Campbell and Mrs Woolfson to be joined as additional claimants in the proceedings. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. 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. 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. In the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[vi], it involves a similar fact pattern to DHN involving a compulsory purchase of property where the occupier of the property was not the owner. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. Further, the decisions of this House in Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd 1955 S.C. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. . 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 . 2427356 VAT 321572722, Registered address: 188 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2AG. See more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies. Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.279742. 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 . LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON.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. 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. However there are many such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them. 40, which were founded on by Goff L.J. . Adams v Cape Industries plc and Another (1991) A worked for a US subsidiary of CI, which marketed asbestos in the US. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 W.L.R. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. portugal vs italy world cup qualifiers 2022. la liga 2012 13 standings. 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. The veil will be lifted only where 'special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts': Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) For example: Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) Jones v Lipman (1962) Nationality. 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. During the marriage the matrimonial home was in England, though for most of the time the husband was found to be resident in Monaco and there was also a second home in Nevis. The development of these sources of law will be considered throughout the essay and this will help assess the impact on lenders following the decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages in 2014. C Minor Autotune, and another 1984 - CA. 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. 59/61 St. George's Road were credited to Woolfson in Campbell's books. Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . 57 and 59/61 St. George's Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson ("Woolfson") and Nos. 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 faade. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. (H.L.) (155) Ibid 561-2, 564. The case Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [ 2] (1897) is one of the cases that illustrated of the separate legal entity principle. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse them in detail, and it will suffice to mention those that are particularly material. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. Lord Keith upheld the decision of the Scottish Court of Appeal, refusing to follow and doubting DHN v Tower Hamlets BC. Facts. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. 8]. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Cookie policy. There the company that owned the land was the wholly owned subsidiary of the company that carried on the business. Join our newsletter. 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. 53/55 St. George's Road. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5. The statement of Lady Hale in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages points strongly toward the loopholes in land law, whereby the lenders can avoid the law relating to overriding interests, usually unregistered, on registered dispositions. Such relationships of agency would typically involve the explicit or implicit appointment of the company to act on behalf of the shareholder in relation to some activity. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. (157) Ibid 562. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersWoolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] 2 EGLR 19 (HL) (UK Caselaw) Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. A company may assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy country. Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd, Canada Safeway Ltd v Local 373, Canadian Food and Allied Workers, Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v National Union of Journalists, DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woolfson_v_Strathclyde_Regional_Council&oldid=1132290696, Lord Keith, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Russell, This page was last edited on 8 January 2023, at 05:01. Commentators also note that the DHN case is self-contradictory. [i] Daimler Company, Limited Appellants v Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) HL [1916] 2 AC 307, [ii] In re FG (films) Ltd, [1953] 1 WLR 483, [iii] Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. V. Home, (1933) Ch. [para. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Cape Industries plc., and on an observation by Lord Keith in the House of Lords decision in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council that "it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." 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. Lords Wilberforce, Fraser and Russell and Dundy concurred. Applied - 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. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. 0 references. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . Woolfson holds two-thirds only of the shares in Solfred and Solfred has no interest in Campbell. The latter was in complete control of the situation as respects anything which might affect its business, and there was no one but itself having any kind of interest or right as respects the assets of the subsidiary. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. 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. View Notes - Spring+2015+ACCT4610+Topic+3 from ACCT 4610 at HKUST. UK legal case. 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. The film was made in India. 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. In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a facade concealing the true facts. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw LL. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council[1976] 1 W.L.R. reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 33 (3), sect. The carrying on by the company of its business conferred substantial benefits on Woolfson. 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. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) - 13th May 1975 - Lands tribunal in Scotland. The issued share capital of Campbell was 1,000 shares, of which 999 were held by Woolfson and one by his wife. 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'. 57 and 59/61 St Georges Road were owned by the first-named appellant Solomon Woolfson (Woolfson) and Nos. But the shop itself, though all on one floor, was composed of different units of property. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the compulsory purchase of a property which the company occupied. Infinite suggestions of high quality videos and topics . Therefore, English courts have shown a strong determination not to embark on any development of a group enterprise law. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. In re FG (films) Ltd[ii], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film. WOOLFSON v. REGIONAL COUNCIL Compulsory purchase Compensation Compensation for disturbance "Occupier" of acquired premises Occupier a trading 27 and Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. Cape Industries plc., and on an observation by Lord Keith in the House of Lords decision in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council that "it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." A significant fallout of the decision in Hashem v. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. 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.. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. Manage Settings It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. 57 St. George's Road. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . It was held that the film could not be considered British made, even though the company owning the rights was a UK company. The latter was in complete control of the situation as respects anything which might affect its business, and there was no one but itself having any kind of interest or right as respects the assets of the subsidiary. No rent was ever paid or credited in respect of No. Nos. Continue with Recommended Cookies. Request a trial to view additional results, Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another, The Esteem Settlement (Abacus (CI) Ltd as Trustee. 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. Facts. This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. . 41-4, December 2014, Melbourne University Law Review Vol. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. , August 2019, Journal of Law and Society Nbr. - 3rd December 1976 - Court of Session (affirmed) - 15th February 1978 - House of Lords (affirmed) In Daimler Co. Ltd V. Continental Tyre And Rubber Co. Ltd[i], A company was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling in England, tyres made in Germany by a German company which held the bulk of shares in the English company. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. From the paper "Limits of Employment-At-Will Doctrine" it is clear that the employment at will doctrine has its own limits. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. In the case of D.H.N. Bambers Stores [1983] F.S.R. 33 (4) [para. Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent. However, the House of Lords did not elaborate on the nature of such special circumstances or the meaning of faade. was in a position to control its subsidiaries in every respect, it was proper to pierce the corporate veil and treat the group as a single economic entity for the purpose of awarding compensation for disturbance; (2) that if the companies were to be treated as separate entities, there was by necessary implication from the circumstances an agreement between D.H.N. 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 . 21Ben Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam) [159] - [164]. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. Denning refers to the subsidiaries as . Yes! Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 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. country. 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. 27 andMeyer v. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd.1958 S.C. Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. 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. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC.[1]. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC [1978] UKHL 5 (15 February 1978), William Trotter and Others v Young Trotter, Epping Forest District Council v Philcox [2000] EWCA Civ 515 (08 December 2000), The Magistrates of Glasgow, and Others, V James Paton, and Others. In so far as Woolfson would suffer any loss, that loss would be suffered by virtue of his position as principal shareholder in Campbell not by virtue of his position as owner of the land. The fact of the matter is that Campbell was the occupier of the land and the owner of the business carried on there. Food Distributors case (supra) is, on a proper analysis, of assistance to the appellants' argument. Xbox One Audio Settings Headset Chat Mixer, Various financial arrangements were entered into between Woolfson and Campbell, but it is unnecessary to go into the details of these. 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 Salomon v Salomon (1897) A.C. 22 (H.L.) 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'. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. The activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the activities of the group of companies to which they belong. (158) Ibid 564. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. wgci past radio personalities; auto sear jig legal 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 the D.H.N. [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([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_2',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. PDF Lifting, Piercing and Sidestepping the Corporate Veil Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998 . Jones v. Lipman and Another[iv], L Agreed to sell certain land to 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. What approach did the Court of Appeal take in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433? Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. Facts; Judgment; See also; Notes; References; External links; Facts. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): . (H.L.) 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. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. Woolfson also owned 20 of the 30 issued shares of company 'B', with the other 10 being owned by his wife. All rights reserved. Nos. 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. But however that may be, I consider the D.H.N. This is same as the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978). I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives would dismiss the appeal. There are certain cases which involve attempts to use the corporate form to avoid existing legal obligations to which the defendants were subject. 22Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. LORD WILBERFORCE.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. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. Court case. Or Going Around? The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel.

Dr Jones And Partners Gawler, Girls Names That Go With Jones, Articles W