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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll