• 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 ...

    Lord Denning opinion on this case was: "for all practical purposes the companies should be treated as one entity and consequently the payment for disturbance should be made to DHN" (2) According to "Lord Denning" the separate legal identity of each company could be disregarded where the ownership of the subsidiaries were in the hands of the holding company.

  2. Company Law Adams v Cape

    This may be done by lifting the corporate veil or by establishing a singe economic entity. Whilst statutory deviations to the principle of corporate entity exist8, these do little to undermine the general principle of corporate personality9. As to common law exceptions, it is difficult to perceive in what form

  1. History of Common Law and Equity.

    the Assize of Clarendon - 1166). "If judgments are to be made, they should be done by twelve free men from the Council as well as 4 free men from the town". This later gave birth to the jury. Henry II Henry had three sons, Richard the Lionhart, John Lackland and Henry II.

  2. Company Law 5. ...

    hard to seek external and internal investment in the aim to expand. A further example can also be seen if a subsidiary company declines into insolvency, the parent company may not necessarily be liable for any debts caused therein11. This last point therefore introduces the theme as to when the corporate veil should be lifted in the interests of justice.

  1. "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.

  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.

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