header-logo header-logo

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

The corporate veil

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll