header-logo header-logo

The corporate veil

17 October 2009 / Victoria Von Wachter
Issue: 7281 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Victoria von Wachter explores how far courts will go to avoid lifting the corporate veil

Since the 19th century ruling in Salomon v Salomon [1874] AC 22 which stated companies were legal entities and a court had no business peering beneath the veil of incorporation to see what was happening there, the rule has been revisited and reinforced over the decades in cases such as Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 443, [1991] 1 All ER 929 and in the more recent past. However, the sanctity of the legal integrity and identity of companies has been protected with vigour by the courts which have a strong disinclination for anyone, let alone them, peering under the skirts of a company to examine its linen (dirty or otherwise). In Adams the Court of Appeal expressly declined to “pierce the veil of incorporation” even when it was alleged that the corporate structures with respect to a subsidiary had been created purely to place liability most advantageously for the parent company.

In Allen v Amalgamated Construction

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll