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

In what circumstances may the veil of incorporation be lifted at common law?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Company Law In what circumstances may the veil of incorporation be lifted at common law? Discuss The 1897 case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 firmly established the principle that a company has a separate legal identity to that of its members. These separate legal identities are protected by the veil of incorporation, which can only be disregarded by the courts in particular circumstances. The established situation where the court will lift the veil of incorporation is where a company has been formed to avoid legal obligations. For example, in Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 All ER 442, land was sold to a newly formed company to avoid an order for specific performance that would otherwise have been made against an individual. ...read more.

Middle

In Smith Stone and Knight Birmingham Corporation [1939] 4 All ER 116, the court considered various factors relevant in determining whether a subsidiary was in fact acting as an agent of the parent. The issues to consider were whether profits were treated as profits of the parent, whether the parent governed the business of the subsidiary and whether the parent was in effectual and constant control. In the past, the corporate veil has been lifted where a group of companies have been viewed as a single economic entity. This argument was raised successfully in the case of D. H. N Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852. In this case, the Court of Appeal were prepared to treat the companies in a group as one economic entity; thereby, allowing the ...read more.

Conclusion

In the 1990 case of Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433, the single economic entity and agency arguments were raised in an attempt to establish that an English company had a presence in the United States. The Court of Appeal made clear that there was no general principle that companies in a group would be regarded as one. Only if the wording of the statute demanded this approach, would it be followed. As far as an agency was concerned, the court took the view that there was no presumption of agency in parent/subsidiary relationship, although an agency relationship could be established on the facts. The court also described the fraud or façade scenario as one well recognised exception to the rule prohibiting the piercing of the corporate veil. ...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 English Legal System 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 English Legal System essays

  1. Lifting the corporate veil..Following the decision of the court of appeal in Adams v ...

    Ltd (1916)" the courts decided to lift the veil to reveal the nationality of the company.

  2. History of Common Law and Equity.

    courts (laws passed down by the lords), as well as the ecclesiastical courts, but eventually emerge as the most popular because the outcomes were tangible and enforced by the officers of the courts. Records of judgments were kept and collected and read - aiding in the development of the principle of precedent.

  1. "It is becoming increasingly difficult to predict whether in any particular case the courts ...

    Part of the payment for the transfer of the business was made in the form of debentures (a secured loan) issued by the company to Salomon. Salomon transferred the debentures to Broderip in exchange for a loan. Salomon defaulted on payment of interest on the loan and Broderip sought to enforce the security against the company.

  2. In what circumstances may a person who finds an object on, or under the ...

    Physical attachment constitutes a necessary condition to consider an item part of the land. Therefore, an automatic carwash machine will prima facie be seen as a fixture and thus a part of the land itself, but a "Dutch Barn" won't.

  1. Company Law Adams v Cape

    The reason being that local law may be less favourable to plaintiffs than the law and practice of the parent company. However, the question of the liability of multinational corporations for the default of their subsidiaries remains uncertain. Liability of a corporate group or an MNE can be established in various ways.

  2. Modernising Company Law

    the collective interests of shareholders.4 The main corporate governance change that the Government is thinking to bring about in accordance with the FR of the Review is that directors' general duty to the company should be codified in statute. The introduction of a statutory statement of directors' duties will mean

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