• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the likelihood of Sid and Kenny avoiding personal liability for the debts of the company

Extracts from this document...


Student I.D. 11207984 Question 3 Assess the likelihood of Sid and Kenny avoiding personal liability for the debts of the company. [20 Marks] Answer This question deals with directors avoiding personal liability for debts of a company, especially within the category of fraud, which is applicable to this scenario. This question also deals with lifting the corporate veil as if the directors are found to be liable the veil will need to be lifted, so as to expose the members whom are found to be liable. When a company is incorporated it is treated as a separate legal entity distinct from its promoters, directors, members, and employees and hence the concept of the corporate veil, separating those parties from the corporate body has arisen. The company as a separate entity was firmly established in the landmark decision in Salomon v. Salomon &Co Ltd1. In this case Salomon, a sole trader, sold his manufacturing business to Salomon & Co Ltd. (a company which he incorporated) in consideration for all but six shares in the company, and received debentures worth �10,000. The other subscribers to the memorandum were his wife and five children who each took up one share. The business subsequently collapsed, and Salomon made a claim, on the basis of the debentures held as a secured creditor. ...read more.


Lipman10. On these authorities, the court will disregard corporate personality where the corporate form is used exclusively as a device to evade an existing, fully crystallised contractual or other legal obligation. In the Gilford Motor Company case, the Court of Appeal was clear that "the company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effective carrying on of business of Mr. Horne"11. In the later case of Jones v. Lipman, it was held that the company here was a "mask that Mr. Lipman holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity"12. When applying the fraud exception to pierce the veil of incorporation, there are a number of issues, which have to be considered in order to apply the exception. The issues that need to be considered are the motives of the fraudulent person, the character of the legal obligation being evaded and the timing of the incorporation of the devise company. The first issue regarding the motive of the fraudulent person(s) is important to establish, as an element of deception is necessary in the fraud exception. In Gilford Motor Co v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman the defendants clearly intended to deceive the plaintiff by using the corporate form to deny the plaintiff by using the corporate form to deny the plaintiff a legal right. ...read more.


3 Smith Stone & Knight Ltd. v. Birmingham Corporation [1939] 4 ALL ER 116 (KBD) 4 DHN Food Distributors v LB Tower Hamlets [1976] 1 WLR 852. However subsequent application of the groups' approach has been limited. The House of Lords has limited The application of this approach to wholly-owned subsidiaries in the later decision of Wilson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) SC (HL). 5 Gencor ACP Ltd & Ors v Dalby [2000] 2 BCLC 734 (ChD). 6 Re Produce Marketing Consortium (No.2) [1989] 5 BCC 569 7 Re Todd Ltd [1990] BCLC 454 8 Referred to as the "fraud exception" 9 Gilford Motor Co. v Horne [1938] Ch 935 (CA). 10 Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 ALL ER 442 11 Lawrence L.J. "...I agree with the finding by the learned judge that the defendant company was a mere channel used by the defendant Horne for the purpose of enabling him, for his own benefit, to obtain the advantage of the customers of the plaintiff, and that therefore the defendant company ought to be restrained as well as the defendant Horne" 12 Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 ALL ER 442 13 Adams v Cape Industries Plc (1990) 2 WLR 657; 14 Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] B.C.L.C 480 (QBD 15 Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 ALL ER 442 16 Gilford Motor Co. v Horne [1938] Ch 935 (CA). 17 Gencor ACP Ltd v. Dalby [2000] 2 BCLC 734 (ChD) ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Torts project - Payment of Compensation in Hit and Run Motor Accident.

    the insurer and the 'second party' the insured.1 Chapter XI of the Act (Sections 145 to 164)2 contains provisions concerning "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party -Risks", According to section 146, no person can use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use a

  2. GNVQ Business - Customer Satisfaction

    Marks and Spencer must make sure to comply with these rules, to fix any completion dates or prices that are incorrect. Labelling of Products Weights and Measures Act 1985 - The Act establishes a hierarchy of standards of weight, length, area, volume and capacity.

  1. Indigenous peoples, almost without exception, have been dispossessed and disregarded by those who 'discovered' ...

    a Communication before the HRC which would result in their view advocating the overthrow of the 2001 treaty to secure the cultural integrity of the Gorgians. The individual claimants would have to show that they had suffered loss of their livelihood, and therefore ability to enjoy their culture, as a result of the 2001 treaty.

  2. A. Advise Quill what changes he needs to make to his business practices and when.

    He will need to inform his American buyers or mortgagees that this key can be decoded via a "Public key" which will be supplied by the authority. The document would therefore be valid providing it is in writing, and signed by each individual by use of electronic signature11.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work