BULLOCK Vs. UNIT CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment which is about to be read by Romer L. J. is the judgment of the court.

(2.) The question on this appeal is whether three wholly owned subsidiary companies of Alfred Booth & Co. Ltd., namely, Booth & Co. (Africa) Ltd., Booth & Co. Ltd. and Bulleys Tanneries Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the subsidiaries"), were, in 1952 and 1953, resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of section 20 of the Finance Act, 1953. The special commissioners held that they were, but their decision was reversed by Wynn-Parry J. on the ground that it was wrong in law. The unit Construction Co. Ltd., who are concerned to uphold the decision of the special commissioners, have appealed to this court against the judges order.

(3.) It was admitted on behalf of the Unit Construction Co. Ltd. before the commissioners that the subsidiaries were at all material times resident in East Africa. We think it is quite clear that this submission was rightly made; and as every possible step was taken, when the subsidiaries were incorporated in 1948 and 1949, to ensure beyond possibility of doubt that their residence should be regarded as being in East Africa, and as their articles of association were never altered, it would have been virtually impossible for the Unit Construction Co. to have contended to the contrary. As the judge observed in his judgment :