• 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...


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.


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.


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. History of Common Law and Equity.

    Cokes philosophy was that you could only know what the law was if you were schooled as a lawyer. James didn't understand the artificial reason of the common law - not a wise thing to tell a king. Coke survived the criticism and went on to write Institutes of the Law of England.

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

    This was done in Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre & Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd4 where shares in an English company were held by German nationals, who were treated as an enemy concern in the First World War.5 So, the judicial lifting of the corporate veil can happen in

  1. Company Law 5. ...

    In addition to this, there are several situations where the courts are prepared to lift the veil of incorporation. Either to diminish the corporate personality to account for individual members, or to ignore the separate personality of several companies in a group, in favour of the economic entity constituted by the group as a whole.

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

    They stated that there was nothing in the "companies' act 1862" about whether the shareholders should not be anyway involved with the majority shareholder. He stated it was not the job of the judges to read into the statue limitations and for them to make a judgement on what was considered to be incorrect.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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