DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Cou...

Facts

• DHN Food Distributors Ltd (DHN) was the parent company in a group that included two wholly-owned subsidiaries.
• One subsidiary owned land used by DHN for its business operations; another owned the vehicles used by DHN.
• The London Borough Council compulsorily acquired the land owned by the subsidiary.
• The issue arose over whether DHN, as the parent, could claim compensation for business disruption, as it had no legal interest in the land itself.
• The Council argued that only the landowner subsidiary should be compensated, while DHN’s consequential business losses were not recoverable.
• The Land Tribunal initially rejected DHN’s claim, strictly applying the doctrine of separate corporate personality.

Issues

1. Whether a parent company can claim compensation for business disturbance caused by the compulsory acquisition of land owned by its wholly-owned subsidiary.
2. Whether the court should pierce the corporate veil to allow DHN to recover compensation, despite the formal separateness between parent and subsidiary companies.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal overturned the Land Tribunal’s decision.
• Lord Denning MR held that the subsidiaries were fully consolidated and under the control of the parent company, functioning as a single economic unit.
• The court pierced the corporate veil, allowing DHN to claim compensation for the business disturbance.
• The ruling treated the group’s operational interdependence as a basis for viewing the companies as virtually a partnership, justifying the disregard of legal separateness in this instance.
• The judgment broadened the circumstances under which courts might overlook corporate separateness, particularly within group structures.

Legal Principles

• The doctrine of separate legal personality, as established in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, generally requires treating each company as a distinct entity.
• Courts may in rare cases pierce the corporate veil, especially where subsidiaries are wholly-owned and act solely to manage the parent company’s assets.
• Lord Denning’s “single economic entity” concept allows courts to consider the economic reality of coordinated group operations over strict legal form.
• Subsequent cases, including Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SLT 159 and Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433, criticized and restricted this approach, reaffirming the primacy of corporate separateness except in very limited circumstances.

Conclusion

This case marked a notable, though ultimately short-lived, willingness by the Court of Appeal to pierce the corporate veil for groups of companies, recognizing commercial reality over strict legal form; however, its expansive approach was later discredited and confined by higher courts, reaffirming the traditional doctrine of separate corporate personality.