Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
If you would like to view other samples of the academic work produced by our writers, please click here.
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council  1 WLR 852 Case Summary
Piercing the corporate veil – groups of companies
The corporate veil may be pierced where groups of companies can be treated as partners.
DHN was the holding company in a group of three companies. There were two subsidiaries, wholly owned by DHN. One subsidiary owned land used by DHN, the other owned vehicles used by DHN. The land was subject to compulsory purchase, and DHN sought compensation for disturbance of its business.
In the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning MR said:
“These subsidiaries are bound hand and foot to the parent company and must do just what the parent company says… This group is virtually the same as a partnership in which all the three companies are partners. They should not be treated separately so as to be defeated on a technical point.” (at 860)
It was therefore held that DHN was entitled to claim. The separate corporate personality doctrine was overridden. However, this is likely to only be followed where the subsidiaries are wholly owned and serve no purpose other than to own the parent company’s assets. The case has not been applied to make one company in a group liable for the debts of another – Re Southard and Co Ltd  1 WLR 118.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.