header-logo header-logo

Wronged parties & parental responsibilities

16 June 2017 / Alex Fox , Charlotte Hill
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

When can a wronged party pursue a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary in tort? Alex Fox & Charlotte Hill provide an update

  • It is a well-established principle that a company has its own legal personality that is separate from those of its shareholders, directors, parent and/or subsidiary companies.
  • However, while a company will not be liable for the acts of its subsidiary by reason only of its shareholding, it may owe its own duty of care towards the employees of the subsidiaries.
  • There has been a recent raft of English case law which explores whether a wronged party can pursue a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary in tort.

Since Saloman v Saloman & Co Limited [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 it has been a well-established principle that a company has its own legal personality that is separate from those of its shareholders, directors, parent and/or subsidiary companies. The court is usually unwilling to look beyond that separate personality to hold the shareholders

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll