Law - Piercing the corporate veil

Authors Avatar

Piercing the corporate veil

Since the establishment in Salomon v Salomon, the separate legal personality has been long recognised in English law for centuries, that is to say, a limited liability company has its own legal identity distinct from its shareholders or directors. However, in certain circumstances the courts may be prepared to look behind the company at the actions of the directors and shareholders. This is known as “piercing the corporate veil”.

There are numerous cases concerning the “piercing the corporate veil”, among which, Jones v Lipman was a typical case. Lipman sold land to Jones by a written contract but refused to complete the sale because of another good deal, instead he offered damages for breach of contract. To put the house out of reach of Jones, he bought a company “off the shelf” and conveyed the house to it. In an action against Lipman and the company, the court granted the specific performance and ruled that “the defendant company is the creature of the first defendant, a device and a sham, a mask which he holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity.”

Join now!

Why should the courts “pierce the corporate veil”? For justice? A disputing case was Creasy v Breachwood Motors Ltd. In that case, Creasy was wrongly dismissed from his employment as the general manager of the Welwyn Motors Ltd and was awarded a damage of more than £60,000. Unknown to him, the Welwyn had already transferred its assets to Breachwood and had been struck off the register of companies. In the transfer, Breachwood paid all of the Welwyn’s debts but did not provide any provision for future possible claims. Breachwood then carried on Welwyn’s former business from the same premises as ...

This is a preview of the whole essay