header-logo header-logo

Split (legal) personalities?

09 September 2022 / Dr Mike Wilkinson
Issue: 7993 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
93296
Corporate agents beware: Dr Mike Wilkinson dissects the mistaken belief that individuals running a company are shielded from personal liability for company wrongdoing
  • Those running a company often claim—wrongly—that they cannot be sued personally for their role in any wrongdoing and that any third party dealing with the company can only sue the company itself for the harm they have suffered.
  • While those running a company cannot be sued on a company’s contract, nor expected to give up property belonging to the company (unless the corporate veil is lifted), after the Supreme Court decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd there is now no reason in principle why such persons cannot be sued for any wrongdoing they have committed or commissioned as a joint tortfeasor.

Persons dealing with a company often suffer losses at the hands of those running a company. They may wish to sue such persons individually, rather than suing the company itself—especially when the company is insolvent. All too often when such situations arise, misunderstandings abound, and third parties

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll