• 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 fa´┐Żade 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. Company Law 5. ...

    Moreover, as shall be discussed, the lifting of the veil may ensue if holding only the corporation liable would be unfair to the claimant in certain circumstances. Even through the advantages detailed above regarding the use of the corporate veil, the internal affairs of a company are never completely concealed from view since publicity has always accompanied incorporation12.

  1. History of Common Law and Equity.

    During Henry II's time, the disputes between the ecclesiastical courts and the secular courts blew up. The archbishop of Canterbury, the top representative of the pope in England was Thomas A-Beckett. Through a series of disputes primarily over the authority of the church courts, Henry had many difficulties (who will

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

    In the leading case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd, Salomon incorporated his boot and shoe repair business, transferring it to a company. He took all the shares of the company except six, which were held by his wife, daughter and four sons.

  1. Interim Injunction.

    to a particular arbitration proceeding, do any of the following - (c) grant an interim injunction or direct any other interim measure to be taken; (5) the powers conferred by this section can be exercised irrespective of whether or not similar powers may be exercised under section 2GB in relation to the same dispute.

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

    Indeed, whether an item will be considered a fixture or a chattel first depends on how firmly the object is attached to the land. If the object isn't attached to the land other than by its own weight (unless it is firmly attached to it), the court is not likely to consider it a fixture, but rather a chattel.

  1. Company Law Adams v Cape

    Often the subsidiary has limited assets and offers little scope for recovery6. Even if the subsidiary is still available and has assets, or the parent corporation can be made directly accountable before local courts for its operations, there is strong motivation to proceed against the parent company in its own jurisdiction.

  2. Modernising Company Law

    Additionally, it is for the directors and not for the court to decide what is in the interests of the company. The general rules about directors' propriety of conduct and standards of skill and care are laid down by complex and inaccessible case law.

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