• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14

Company Law Assignment. I will identify the theory of a corporate personality, demonstrate why companies exist autonomously from their promoters or owners, introduce the concept of a company having a corporate veil, and finally to identify why there is s

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Module Title: Company Law Module Code: UJUTN7-30-3 Undergraduate Coursework 2010/11 Company Law Assignment ? Question A In this assignment, I will identify the theory of a corporate personality, demonstrate why companies exist autonomously from their promoters or owners, introduce the concept of a company having a corporate veil, and finally to identify why there is such controversy around the notion of a court lifting the corporate veil, with a focus on ?sham? companies. The theory of a company having a separate legal personality comes from the introduction of incorporation. Incorporation of a company is established when the company submits all of the relevant documents to the registrar, which, if approved; will result in the issue of an incorporation certificate, acting as conclusive evidence of its incorporation. The requirement for a company to have a separate legal entity is forever scrutinized by certain legal professionals, however this is an essential factor to ensure all of the legal liability a company can create is not directly connected to its members or shareholders. As a result, companies can own property, employ people to work in a desired role, incur their own debts and initiate contracts. Incorporated companies exist independently autonomous from its original promoters and the people who are in directorship. The independent legal status associated with incorporated companies is said to have created the idea of casting a veil between the company and its? members/owners/share holders, which is known amongst the legal profession as the corporate veil. As a result, this has caused various arguments against whether this separation should exist and if the so called corporate veil should be permanently lifted or just lifted at the courts discretion. ...read more.


When Mr Jones attempted to complete this contractual agreement, Mr Lipman changed his mind and devised a plan to negate his pre-contractual obligation to sell the property. As a result, the property was conveyed to an incorporated company that he had created and formed simply for the purpose to prevent the specific performance order within his contracted obligation with Mr Jones. This case was held in the High Court, with Russell, J, who decided that the defendant had created the company specifically for the purpose of avoiding his pre-contractual obligation with Mr Jones. He stated that the company was a mere ?cloak or sham?[7] to avoid the specific performance which he had previously contracted and agreed to do. The facts of the case clearly showed a piercing of the veil and illustrated how if a company is created as a device to conceal facts and avoid pre-contractual obligations, the strict application of the Salomon principle should be ?pierced? or ?lifted?. However, in this case Russell, J. did not achieve this justification, as he refused to recognise the existence of the corporate veil and instead made an order for specific performance against the defendant and the company he had created. The Lipman v Jones case was one of the first examples of a company being created as a clear ?facade?. Even though, the judge did not use the legal terms of lifting the corporate veil the idea of it was still present throughout, and it wasn?t until a later case that clear principles were created to justify lifting or piercing of the veil. This came in the leading judgement of Lord Justice Slade, in Adams[8]. The facts of this case were of high complexity. ...read more.


In addition, there are other interpretations of lifting the veil; known as extending the veil, as seen in DHN Food Distributors Ltd[14] where the veil is lifted with the purpose of drawing it back over a larger amount of companies, and a minor form known as peeping behind the veil seen in the case Atlas Maritime[15], where the veil is lifted to simply retrieve information on who directs or controls the company. Both interpretations are valid within the English courts, however still have limited applicability and are rarely used and discussed[16]. To conclude, the indications within the English legal system is that courts, at their own discretion can decide to lift or pierce the corporate veil, depending on the basis that the facts of the case coincide with previous case law, (with a requirement to identify the true nature of a company) and identifies that a company is created as a sham or an agent, to enable illegal activities being continued under limited liability. Journal articles and various legal practitioner articles identify that courts have the power to distinguish and interpret the law to their own interpretation through the use of the so called lifting of the ?Corporate veil?, which has many discrepancies. However, it is evident that without these exceptions where the veil can be lifted, it would allow opportunists to take advantage of incorporated companies, having a separate legal entity and use the legal principles to their own advantage. It is clear, that case law and various articles for and against courts lifting the veil still have the overriding basis that parliament would not have intended to create an opportunity for fraud and various wrongful acts to be allowed due to a statute they created. As a result, the courts allow; in exceptional circumstances, the corporate veil to be lifted. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Commercial 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 University Degree Commercial Law essays

  1. The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd has be watched ...

    effectively controlled the company and had fixed the value of the assets used to pay for his shares (note now the valuation requirements for non-cash consideration for shares in public companies(s 103)) On the facts of this case, merely being a controlling shareholder will not override the statutory effect of incorporation.

  2. Critical Evaluation of The Companies Act 2006 and its comparison to The Companies Act ...

    The shareholders of a company have the duty to decide on more 'major' issues that a company faces. General meetings are the forum in which shareholders make decisions. There are two types of general meetings; Annual General Meetings (AGMs) and Extraordinary General Meetings (EGMs).

  1. Limited liability

    We will now try to analyze and assess some of these problems. i) Moral hazard The most frequent argument against the conferring of limited liability is the moral hazard, which it may create through the shift of the risk of failure from shareholders to creditors23.

  2. Company Law. This report aims to look into the unique feature of the company ...

    Where a physical act of driving a vehicle is required (Richmond London Borough Council v Pinn and Wheeler Ltd.7 ) 2. Where imprisonment is the only available sentence. 7. [1989] R.T.R 354 Court may regard the intensions of the individuals in control of the company as the intensions of company,

  1. In the following group assignment, we will be carrying out the role of a ...

    Following is the consumer protection act 1987 to illustrate the consumer rights to sue against our client. The consumer protection act 1987 The consumer protection act (CPA) 1987 was passed to implement the EC directive on product liability. The CPA 1987 provides a means of redress for a consumer against

  2. Reform of the ultra vires rule.

    too much emphasis on the channelling of the company's resources into specialised areas of business (a 19th century panacea for economic progress) instead of the exploitation of suitable and profitable business opportunities of any kind as and when they presented themselves.

  1. Memorandum of association

    That is where the doctrine of ultra vires comes into play in relation to joint stock companies." ultra" means beyond, "vires" means powers. An action outside the memorandum is ultra vires the company.

  2. Veil of Incorporation. Under the Companies Act 2006[1], the effect of registering a ...

    The House of Lords held that the insurance company was correct and that the company should have insured the property as it was a separate legal person from the individual. Macaura demonstrates that even a majority shareholder of a company has no legal or equitable title over the company's property.

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