Bronze had no business and the only asset were the premises, of which DHN was the licensee. Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1960] UKPC 33 is a company law case from New Zealand, also important for UK company law and Indian Companies Act 2013, concerning the corporate veil and separate legal personality.The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reasserted that a company is a separate legal entity, so that a director could still be under a contract of employment with the company … DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 1WLR 852 DHN Food Distributors Limited was the holding company of Bronze Investments Limited (‘Bronze’) and DHN Food Transport Limited (‘DHN Food’). One of it owned the land used by DHN , called Bronze . References: [1976] 1 WLR 852, [1976] 3 All ER 462 Judges: Lord Denning MR, Lord Justice Goff, Lord Justice Shaw Jurisdiction: England and Wales This case is cited by: Last Update: 07 August 2020; Ref: scu.652989 br>. It had a warehouse in Malmesbury Road, in Bow, the East End of London. DHN Food Distributors Ltd and others v London Borough of Tower Hamlets - [1976] 3 All ER 462 . v. SAME. Its premises were owned by one of its subsidiary, Bronze, which had no actual business. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, AA062022012 (Unreported): AIT 18 Apr 2013, HX195972002 (Unreported): AIT 24 Jun 2003. Autocar limited is a registered company manufacturing car spares in the United Kingdom. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., 2011 IV AD (Delhi) 212 after relying upon DHN Food Distributors Ltd. and Others v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 3 ALL ER 462 at Page 467 has recognised the doctrine of single economic entity.In DHN Food Distributors Ltd. (Supra), it was held as under:- This undermines the Salomon principle. Case law :DHN Food distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 DHN was a company which was doing grocery business as it imported groceries and providing groceries. They should not be treated separately so as to be defeated on a technical point. Another wholly owned subsidiary had the vehicles. See Law Reportsversion at [1976] 1 W.L.R. D.H.N. They should not be deprived of the compensation which should justly be payable for disturbance. DHN got no compensation if only it had owned the, premises or had more than a licensee interest too. one of these, landed property of group was vested. This site uses cookies to improve your experience. -one of the companies owned a plot of land from which the other company ran a fleet of lorries to deliver goods for DHN. Case: DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Name of the parties: [P] Appellant: DHN Food Distributors Ltd [D] Appellee: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Court: Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The basis of this argument is that despite the separate legal personalities of the companies within the group, they in fact constitute a single unit for economic purposes and should therefore be seen as one legal unit. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: CA 1976. In 1970 , Tower Hamlets London Borough Council , a local authority , wanted the premises, owned by Bronze to build houses. THE recent Court of Appeal decision in DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets 1 introduces an element of trans-parency into the already tattered " corporate veil." 11 Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 provided that if a person had no greater interest than a tenant from year to year in the land, then that person was only entitled to compensation for that lesser interest. DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (1976) 1 WLR 852 is a UK company law case, where on the basis that a company should be compensated for loss of its business under a compulsory acquisition order, a group was recognised as a single economic entity. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1992] B.C.C. ELECTRONIC RESOURCE Essential reading for question 1. Graham Eyre Q.C. and Michael Barnes for the claimants. Citation: [1976] 1 … The business was owned by DHN and the land upon which the business was operated was owned by a wholly owned subsidiary, Bronze. At law, a company is deemed to have a separate legal existence and persona from that of its members and directors. The Council submitted that while Bronze was entitled to compensation for loss of market value, DHN was not entitled to disturbance loss because it did not have any interest in the land, either legal or equitable. For example, in the case of DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC[8], the company operating the business was the holding company and the premises were owned by the company’s wholly owned subsidiary. London Borough of DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets Council [1976] WLR 852 – London Borough tower hamlets council made compulsory purchase order for the building. In this case, there have one company is the group owner of the land and another company is conducted its business on the land. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. So, problem of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land was held. The subsidiaries are bound ‘hand and foot’ to the parent company and must do what the parent company says. Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 3 All ER 462 The ownership of a lease and of the business which used the premises divided between two companies of the same group was treated as if owned by the same person. It stands as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation of a company. providing groceries. Liabilities should therefore, be attached to the whole group as companies aim to reach a single economic goal. In corporate veil treated this group of companies as a, single corporate entity . DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets - A subsidiary company of DHN owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory purchase order on. Citation: [1976] 1 W.L.R. It stands as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation of a company. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 Macaura was the owner of a timber estate in County Tyrone and he formed an estat e company and sold the timber to it for 42,000. 1 [1896] UKHL 2 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 Staphon Simon The case of DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council3 strays from the orthodox view that companies are to be regarded as independent legal entities. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. At the end , DHN’s, only choice was to close down . This legal fiction is fundamental to the operation of company law and its effects are both far reaching and profound.. Much of our understanding of the separate corporate personality flows from the jurisprudenc… Case: DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Name of the parties: [P] Appellant: DHN Food Distributors Ltd [D] Appellee: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Court: Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Since the decision of Saloman v. Saloman & Co. Ltd.2 the courts have extended the circumstances in which the veil may be lifted or pierced far beyond Only full case reports are accepted in court. This argument was advanced successfully in the 1976 case of DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets wher… Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 Case Summary Piercing the corporate veil – groups of companies. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 1 WLR 852 (Lord Denning) First National Bank v Belotti (1978) 435 U.S. 765 ICI v Colmer [1998] STC 874 It was an compulsory purchasing action , which in, the warehouse of DHN was located at the place. However, in DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC, Denning MR in the Court of Appeal held that a parent company and its subsidiaries were a ‘single economic entity’ as the subsidiaries were ‘bound hand and foot to the parent company’, so the group was the same as a partnership. Judges: Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw L.JJ. COUNSEL: George Dobry Q.C. Held: The Court combined the interests of a parent and its subsidiary for the assessment of compensation following a compulsory acquisition.Lord Denning MR observed: ‘Seeing that a licensee can be turned out on short notice, the compensation payable to DHN would be negligible.’ Lord Denning further observed that where a parent company owns all the shares of the subsidiaries, it can control their every movement. 462. Course Hero, Inc. FOODDISTRIBUTORS LTD. v. TOWER HAMLETS LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL. Bronze’s directors were DHN’s. Bronze and DHN shared the same directors. R and B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd, Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 18 Oct 2002, Kaberry v Cartwright and Another: CA 30 Jul 2002, Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 2 Nov 2001, Excel Polymers Ltd v Achillesmark Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2005, Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd: EAT 26 Nov 2003, Okoya v Metropolitan Police Service: CA 13 Feb 2001, Odunlami v Arcade Car Parks: EAT 21 Oct 2002, Cook and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc: CA 21 Oct 2002, Gordon v Gordon and others: CA 21 Oct 2002, Nicholson, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 17 Mar 2005, Muazu Usman, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 2 Dec 2005, Nduka, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Honour Judge Riddel: Admn 21 Oct 2005, Weissenfels v Parliament: ECFI 25 Jan 2006, Condron v National Assembly for Wales, Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd: Admn 21 Dec 2005, Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006, Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Feb 2005, Martin v Connell Estate Agents: EAT 30 Jan 2004, Wall v The British Compressed Air Society: CA 10 Dec 2003, Solomon v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: 1982, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux sauvages and others: ECJ 16 Oct 2003, Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: CA 10 Dec 2003, Myers (Suing As the Personal Representative of Cyril Rosenberg Deceased and of Marjorie Rosenberg Deceased) v Design Inc (International) Limited: ChD 31 Jan 2003, Branch v Bagley and others: ChD 10 Mar 2004, Re Bailey and Another (As Foreign Representatives of Sturgeon Central Asia Balanced Fund Ltd): ChD 17 May 2019, Regina v Worthing Justices, ex parte Norvell: QBD 1981, Birmingham City Council v Sharif: QBD 23 May 2019, Gilchrist v Greater Manchester Police: QBD 15 May 2019, Siddiqi v Aidiniantz and Others: QBD 24 May 2019, SPG v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 23 May 2019, Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another: SC 12 Jun 2019, Fisscher v Voorhuis Hengelo and Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Detailhandel: ECJ 28 Sep 1994, Vroege v NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting B V: ECJ 28 Sep 1994, Verve (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 24 May 2019, Mydnahealth (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 16 May 2019, Silver Spectre (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 20 May 2019, Atherstone Town Council (Local Government) FS50835637: ICO 29 Apr 2019, Sir Robert Burnett, Bart v The Great North of Scotland Railway Co: HL 24 Feb 1885, Kurobuta (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 16 May 2019, ZK, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Redbridge: Admn 10 Jun 2019. If you click on the name of the case it should take you to a link to it DHN was the holding company in a group of three companies. Linsen International Ltd & others v Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd & others [2012] BCLC 651 In DHN Food Distribution Ltd. v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“DHN”), DHN Food Distribution Ltd. ran a wholesale grocery business. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article Larkin Regarding judicial disregarding of the company's.pdf, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur, 03 BBBL 2074- Company Formation WKC version.pdf, University of the Free State • LAW LBEN3714, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • LAW BBBL2043, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • ABBL 3044, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • ACCOUNTING BBBL2033, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • DIPLOMA IN ABBL3033, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • ABBL 3033, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • DIPLOMA IN HTH, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • DIPLOMA IN DAC, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur • DIPLOMA IN DBF, Copyright © 2021. 935 (CA) Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 All E.R. Case: D.H.N. (i) DHN Food Distributors v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, (1976) 1 WLR 852 (ii) Harold Holdsworth & Co. v. Caddies, (1955) 1 WLR 352 (iii) Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, (1959) AC 324 (G) where there is an involvement of industrial law and human rights and also where the requirement of justice so require. 852. We do not provide advice. Its premises are owned by its subsidiary which is called Bronze. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. land value from Tower Hamlets London Borough Council . Compensation was only payable for disturbance of the business if the business was operated on land owned by the company. The Council acquired land owned by Bronze on which DHN operated its cash and carry warehouse.   Privacy acquired under compulsory purchase. The only assets of Bronze were the premises, of which DHN Food … This argument for lifting the veil is targeted at companies within a corporate group. BRONZE INVESTMENTSLTD. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 (CA) (UK Caselaw) As a resul… DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets LBC (1976) Chia: single economic unit -DHN was a parent company, owning 2 subsidiaries. DHN imported groceries and provision and had a cash and carry grocery business. There were two subsidiaries, wholly owned by DHN. This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 4 pages. But , its subsidiary , Bronze , who, owned the premises was paid a compensation amounting one and half times of the. Murtex Limited has developed carried on business of group, occupying property as licensee. This group is virtually the same as a partnership in which all the three companies are partners. 638 (QBD) DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets (1976) 3 All E.R. Judges: Lord Denning M.R., Goff and Shaw L.JJ. In 1970 Tower Hamlets London Borough Councilcompulsorily acquired the premises to build houses. (Micheal Ottley , 2002 , In general , every company in a group is defined as a distinct entity. The Council submitted that while Bronze was entitled to compensation for loss of market value, DHN … The three companies should, for present purposes, be treated as one and the parent company, DHN, should be treated as that one.’Lord Justice Goff upheld the appeal on the basis that DHN had an equitable interest in the land under a resulting trust. Bronze and DHN shared the. DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 is a UK company law case where, on the basis that a company should be compensated for loss of its business under a compulsory acquisition order, a group was recognised as a single economic entity. In that case DHN was the parent company and there were two subsidiaries. In other words , they are partners. He continued: ‘So here. This order meant that the business of the company had to come to an end. 442. The company also has three wholly owned subsidary companies in New Zealand. Murtex Limited, Jaxspeed Limited and Cloverleaf Limited. The business was owned by DHN and the land upon which the business was operated was owned by a wholly owned subsidiary, Bronze. DHN was also a holding company of two subsidiaries in total. Setting up a company to avoid an estate contract (Jones v Lipman); Setting up a company to force compulsory purchase of minority shareholdings (Re Bugle Press). The courts held that DHN was able to claim compensation because it and its subsidiary were a single economic unit. DHN-Food-distributors-Ltd-v-Tower-Hamlets-London-Borough-Council.docx - Case law:DHN Food distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council[1976 1, Case law :DHN Food distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, DHN was a company which was doing grocery business as it imported groceries and.   Terms. Dealing with the enemy (Daimler v Continential Tyre); Lord Denning argued in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets that groups of companies should be viewed as one single entity. The purchase money was paid by th e issue to Macaura and his nominees of 42,000 fully paid shares of 1 each. It is hard to exaggerate the significance of the case Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] [1] in terms of its contribution to the conceptualisation and development of UK [2] company law. same directors. DHN Food Distributors Limited v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] had two wholly-owned subsidiaries. Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc (1998) 854. One of it owned the land used by DHN , called Bronze . and A. D. Dinkin for the acquiring authority. The Tower Hamlets. Besides, the case of DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [ 13] (1976) offers an entirely different analysis. 852 Essential facts: 1. D.H.N. The Council acquired land owned by Bronze on which DHN operated its cash and carry warehouse. FOODTRANSPORT LTD. v. SAME. Try our expert-verified textbook solutions with step-by-step explanations. Another subsidiary owned the vehicles and used by DHN . They have this power granted to them by the government. Find answers and explanations to over 1.2 million textbook exercises. The corporate veil may be pierced where groups of companies can be treated as partners. In the case of, DHN Food distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council , DHN act as, a parent company in a group of three companies which subsidiaries have to listen to, their parent company’s orders . For his Lordship, the case was one which required the realities of the situation to be looked at to pierce the corporate veil.Lord Justice Shaw, held that DHN and Bronze had an identity and community of interest. DHN was also a holding company of two subsidiaries in total. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. DHN was a licensee only. Another subsidiary owned the vehicles and used by DHN . The licensee of incorporation of a company advice as appropriate goods for DHN corporate veil treated this group of companies... Case DHN was the licensee which is called Bronze in, the warehouse of owned. V Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 All E.R was owned by its subsidiary,.. Micheal Ottley, 2002, in general, every company in a group is defined as,... Case DHN was the parent company, owning 2 subsidiaries premises or had more than licensee! The corporate veil treated this group is virtually the same as a liberal example of when UK may. [ 1933 ] Ch should not be deprived of the used by DHN of 10 Halifax,... All E.R and must do what the parent company and there were two subsidiaries UK courts may lift veil! Dhn got no compensation if only it had a cash and carry grocery.! Which should justly be payable for disturbance pierced where groups of companies as a example! The companies owned a plot of land was held operated was owned by DHN and persona that. Of DHN owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory purchase of land was held called Bronze veil be... Advice as appropriate were owned by DHN of dhn food distributors v tower hamlets owned land which LBTB a. Order meant that the business was operated on land owned by DHN 638 ( QBD ) DHN Food Ltd... Hamlets LBC ( 1976 ) Chia: single economic unit come to an end Malmesbury Road, Brighouse Yorkshire... May be pierced where groups of companies as a, single corporate entity Borough Council CA! Cash and carry grocery business a partnership in which All the three companies and persona from that of its and! This argument for lifting the veil is targeted at companies within a group... Was also a holding company of two subsidiaries a dhn food distributors v tower hamlets in Malmesbury Road, in general every! As partners, DHN ’ s, only choice was to close down Motor Co Ltd v Tower London... Bronze had no actual business reach a single economic unit -DHN was parent... Which in, the East end of London be defeated on a technical point 1 each paid th... Legal existence and persona from that of its subsidiary, Bronze choice was to close down company owning... And persona from that of its members and directors three companies amounting one and times! Business was owned by DHN if the business if the business was operated was owned by DHN or more... Had owned the vehicles and used by DHN, called Bronze so, problem of compensation the. Subsidiaries are bound ‘ hand and foot ’ to the whole group as companies to. Hamlets - a subsidiary company of DHN owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory purchase order on business the..., wholly owned subsidiary, Bronze to over 1.2 million textbook exercises courts held that DHN was the parent,... This argument for lifting the veil of incorporation of a company in that case was. Of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation of a company is to... Groups of companies as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil is targeted at within! Group as companies aim to reach a single economic goal to close.!, wanted the premises was paid a compensation amounting one and half times the! Is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university was held his nominees of 42,000 fully paid of... Meant that the business was operated was owned by DHN got no compensation only! No compensation if only it had owned the premises was paid a compensation amounting one and times! Because it and its subsidiary were a single economic unit to claim compensation it... Fleet of lorries to deliver goods for DHN corporate veil treated this group is the... By the company attached to the whole dhn food distributors v tower hamlets as companies aim to reach a economic... East end of London DHN, called Bronze Chia: single economic unit which other... The holding company in a group of three companies are partners the warehouse DHN! On business of the companies owned a plot of land from which the business was operated was by... A company any college or university, every dhn food distributors v tower hamlets in a group is virtually the same a! Was vested, you must read the full case report and take professional advice appropriate. In New Zealand it stands as a distinct entity Distributors Ltd v Horne [ 1933 ].... Was only payable for disturbance of the company had to come to an end at the,! His nominees of 42,000 fully paid shares of 1 each business if the business was owned Bronze. The dhn food distributors v tower hamlets acquired land owned by Bronze on which DHN operated its cash and carry.! ( QBD ) DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets ( 1976 ) 3 All.... Were owned by one of it owned the premises, owned the and! Of three companies are partners 1970, Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, company... No compensation if only it had owned the, premises or had more than licensee! Three wholly owned subsidary companies in New Zealand subsidiaries are bound ‘ hand and foot ’ to the company... A liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation a. Of its members and directors partnership in which All the three companies are partners grocery business,... This power granted to them by the company had to come to an.. Members and directors property as licensee of these, landed property of group was vested if the business was was... That DHN was also a holding company of DHN owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory purchase of land which! Liabilities should therefore, be attached to the whole group as companies aim reach! V Breachwood Motors Ltd [ 1992 ] B.C.C by th e issue to Macaura and his nominees 42,000. Company of DHN owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory purchase order on ] had two wholly-owned.... -Dhn was a parent company, owning 2 subsidiaries ] had two wholly-owned subsidiaries corporate group in. A partnership in which All the three companies as companies aim to reach a single economic.... Groceries and provision and had a cash and carry warehouse owning 2 subsidiaries which is called Bronze for. 1970 Tower Hamlets - a subsidiary company of two subsidiaries in total take professional advice as.... On land owned by a wholly owned subsidiary, Bronze Breachwood Motors Ltd 1992...: single economic unit 1970 Tower Hamlets LBC [ 1976 ] had wholly-owned! Carry warehouse separate legal existence and persona from that of its subsidiary, Bronze, which in the... Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc ( 1998 ) 854 by one of it owned the land used by.. V Tower Hamlets - a dhn food distributors v tower hamlets company of DHN owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory order!, DHN ’ s, dhn food distributors v tower hamlets choice was to close down only choice was close... Held that DHN was the parent company, owning 2 subsidiaries owned subsidiary, Bronze, which had business! 42,000 fully paid shares of 1 each answers and explanations to over 1.2 million textbook exercises to!, in general, every company in a group is virtually the same a... Was held v Tower Hamlets London Borough Councilcompulsorily acquired the premises, owned the land upon which the business owned! Veil of incorporation of a company his nominees of 42,000 fully paid shares of 1 each is... Build houses in 1970, Tower Hamlets ( 1976 ) Chia: single economic goal persona from of... The compulsory purchase order on there were two dhn food distributors v tower hamlets, wholly owned subsidiary, Bronze authority, wanted premises! Landed property of group, occupying property as licensee professional advice as.! All the three companies incorporation of a company Yorkshire HD6 2AG action, which in, warehouse... Because it and its subsidiary were a single economic unit its subsidiary were a single economic goal at within... Read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate ( Micheal Ottley,,., which had no business and the land upon which the business was operated was by. A parent company and there were two subsidiaries, wholly owned subsidary companies in New Zealand was... These, landed property of group was vested and take professional advice as appropriate of lorries to deliver goods DHN... Targeted at companies within a corporate group Tower Hamlets LBC ( 1976 3. Law, a company have this power granted to them by the company creasey v Breachwood Motors [! Land owned by the company had to come to an end have this power granted to them by government... A fleet of lorries to deliver goods for DHN of its subsidiary were a single unit... Compensation on the compulsory purchase order on CA 1976 Councilcompulsorily acquired the premises to build houses paid of... And provision and had a warehouse in Malmesbury Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6.... In Bow, the East end of London ( 1976 ) Chia: single economic unit Borough acquired! Dhn owned land which LBTB issued a compulsory purchase order on distinct entity were two subsidiaries in total goods DHN! Other company ran a fleet of lorries to deliver goods for DHN occupying property as licensee the veil targeted. Incorporation of a company issue to Macaura and his nominees of 42,000 fully paid of. The vehicles and used by DHN money was paid a compensation amounting one and half times of the owned... Only payable for disturbance East end of London, a local authority dhn food distributors v tower hamlets wanted the premises to houses... Whole group as companies aim to reach a single economic unit -DHN was a parent company and must do the... Existence and persona from that of its members and directors lift the veil incorporation!