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

The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd has be watched very carefully … The courts can and often do draw aside the veil … The legislature has shown the way with group accounts and the rest. And the courts should follow suit.

Extracts from this document...


The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd has be watched very carefully ... The courts can and often do draw aside the veil ... The legislature has shown the way with group accounts and the rest. And the courts should follow suit (littlewoods mail order store Ltd v IRC 1969 per Lord Denning MR) Answer plan While questions lifting the veil are fairly common, such questions are not well answer by saying that there is a large number of cases where the courts will left the veil and then listing them. A question such as this calls for effective deployment of the cases and discussion of Lord Denning's view that the court should be more interventionist in disregarding corporate personality. Answer The fundamental attribute of corporate personality is that the company is a legal entity distinct from its member- a company is a legal person. Corporate personality was created by statute in the first half of the 19th century, but the full significance of this provision was not appreciated until the famous case of Salomon v Salomon & Co in 1897, to which Lord Denning's referred. In Salomon, S converted his existing, successful business into a limited company, of which he was the managing director. S valued his business at #39000 (an honest but wholly inaccurate valuation) debenture and 20001 #1 shares out of the issued share capital of #20007. S's wife and five children each held one of the remaining issued shares (seven being the minimum number of shareholders at that date), probably as his nominee. ...read more.


There a number of minor provisions. For example, s 24 makes a person makes is a shareholder, after a six month period in which the company has had less than two shareholders, jointly and severally liable for the company's debts. Section 349(4) imposes liability upon an officer of the company who has signed company cheques, etc, on which the name of the company does not appear in full. However, the most important provisions are those relating to fraudulent or wrongful trading and the special rules for groups of companies. Sections 213 and 215 of the Insolvency Act 1989 impose liability for the debts of a company where a person has engaged in fraudulent or wrongful trading. The rules on group accounts are immensely complicated; broadly, they are design to ensure that the accounts of associated companies are looked at as a whole to provide a 'true and fair view'. What can we discern as the concern of parliament in providing exception to Salomon's case? It is clear that an element of wrongdoing or impropriety should disqualify a person from the manifold benefits of corporate personality (particularly that of limited liability) and the courts have been reluctant to follow this lead. Such cases seem currently to be called cases changes with the years. The veil has been lifted to prevent a person escaping specific performance of a contract by selling the contracted land to a company which he controlled (Jones v lipman 1962), ant to prevent a person from evading the effect of a valid restraint clause (Gilford Motor Co Led v Horne 1933). ...read more.


Consequently, the house of lords was able, on the facts, to distinguish DHN, where had been a complete coincidence of shareholding. Nevertheless, the House went further and doubted the correctness of DHN other than as an interpretation of the particular statute authorizing compensation. Thus, whatever the merits of the economic reality approach, it seems unlikely to find favour in British courts in the near future. That strict adherence to the legal structures can cause unfairness to shareholders has been recognize and ameliorated by the courts in the case of the winding up of quasi-partnership companies (Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd 1970) and in the interpretation of unfair prejudice in the context of s 459. Such strict adherence may cause loss to creditors (as when a company abandons its insolvent subsidiary) and, as yet, this position has not been ameliorated by the courts (see the somewhat caustic comment on this by Templeman LJ in Re Southard & Co Ltd 1979). However, such reforms are probably best left to parliament- the potential imposition of liability for wrongful trading upon a shadow director may prove a more effective means of controlling the use of high risk subsidiaries than the possibility of subsequently lifting the veil. If parliament does not intervene, we may find that the implementation of amended Ninth Directive requires the recognition of economic reality, regardless of the primacy of the principle of separate legal personality. Could illustrate the strength of the Salomon case by referring to other illustrative cases, for example, Lee v Lee Air Farming Ltd 1961, and give the facts of some of the 'lifting the veil' case. Greater discussion of wrongful trading could be useful. ...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. Limited liability

    The blatant misuse of limited liability is easily discernible in the case of the so-called "phoenix" companies, where deceitful entrepreneurs let their company to go into insolvency liquidation, thus avoiding their liabilities to creditors and then they buy the assets of the company from the liquidator and re-commence business through a new company.

  2. The World Trade Organization and Its Critics

    The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Established in 1961, this organization seeks to promote the conservation of the world?s biological diversity and the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. ? American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations Founded in 1955 and most commonly referred to as AFL-CIO, this is

  1. The commercial advantages of agreed remedies are so extensive that the courts should almost ...

    The difficulty of foreseeability of loss is acknowledged by the court as a liquidated damages clause is enforceable as long as the pre-estimation is genuine; there is no need for it to be accurate. Without such an approach, a strict rule against over-compensation would render liquidated damages clause very likely

  2. Coporate Law and Limited Liability. There are certain circumstances in which courts will have ...

    The relationship between the shareholders and the company and the rights of shareholders are regulated by the articles of association of the company. The majority of shareholders usually control the company, however exceptions exist for protection of minority shareholders where the majority act oppressively or cause detriment to the minority,

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

    London Borough Council, where DHN was a parent company which owned two subsidiaries. One of the companies owned land which the other company used to deliver goods from. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council obtained the premises and argued that they were not liable to the holding company for disrupting their

  2. Company Law Assignment. I will identify the theory of a corporate personality, demonstrate ...

    involved mining in South Africa, as well as the marketing of Asbestos (a lethal material that if inherited can cause serious illnesses, such as malignant cancer). The marketing of this lethal substance, caused the company to come under legal action in the United States of America, where the claimants (plaintiffs at that time)

  1. Business Law Assignment. Find the case of Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd. v S. Spanglett ...

    I have found this definition in this website: http://definitions.uslegal.com/http://ashretail.yolasite.com/resources/Sale%20of%20Goods%20Act%201979.pdfm/mischief-rule/ b) Would you classify this source of law as civil or criminal? What is the subject matter of this source of law? (2 marks)[3] - I would classify this source of law as civil.

  2. Section 205 of the companies Act 1963 provides a comprehensive remedy for aggrieved shareholders. ...

    The court was satisfied that such exclusion amounted to oppression under s 205, regardless of the capacity held by petitioner, even though the case was decided upon other grounds. This distinction is important, as it is often the case that a shareholder of a company may also be a director

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