The British courts have not strictly maintained the Salomon principle of separateness, or the idea of the incorporation. Critically discuss the cases where the apparent failure to maintain the Salomon principle has occured, the reasons why this has occured and the current legal position adopted by the courts in relation to the Salomon principle...
[...] It was argued that while the fundamental principle was that within a group of companies, each member of the group is a separate legal entity possessed of separate rights and liabilities, the court could, in the appropriate circumstances, ignore the distinction between them and treat them as one. The court in Cape Industries held that those cases where laws were interpreted to apply to the economic reality of group companies rather than view each company within such a group as separate legal entities were all cases of interpretation of specific statutes. Otherwise the rule in Salomon should apply. But in the case of D.H.N. Food Distributors Ltd v. [...]
[...] Ottolenghi, op. cit., p See Farrar's Company Law (2nd ed., 1988) p.61. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd v Lewellin  1 WLR 352. Ibid, per Lord Evershed at 367. Trebanog Working Men's Club and Institute Ltd v MacDonald  1 KB 576. Ibid, per Lord Field. The Abbey, Malvern Wells Ltd v Ministry of Local Government and Planning  2 All ER 154. Re FG (Films) Ltd  1 WLR 483. See Woolfson v. Starthclyde Regional Council  S.L.T H.L.sc. [...]
[...] Law. 21(10), p. 312- 314. Griffin, Holding companies and subsidiaries- The corporate veil (1991) Comp. Law. p. 16-17. Wardman, The search for reality in corporate group relationships (1994) Comp. Law p. 179-181. Cheong Ann Png, Lifting the veil of incorporation : Creasey v. [...]
[...] He sold the land and timber to a company he formed and received as consideration all the fully paid shares. The company carried the business of felling and milling timber. A fire destroyed all timber which had been felled. Macaura had earlier insured the timber against loss of by fire in his own name but he had not transferred the insurance policy to the company. So when Macaura made a claim his insurers refused to pay arguing that he had no insurable interest in the timber. [...]
[...] Jones v Lipman  1 WLR 832; 1 All ER 442. Adams v Cape Industries Plc, op. cit., p G. Gilford Motor Co v Horne  Ch 935. Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd Times  B.C.L.C (QBD). Ord v. Belhaven Pubs Ltd  2 BCLC 447. Cheong Ann Png, Lifting the veil of incorporation : Creasey v. Breachwood Motors : a right decision with the wrong reasons (1999) Comp. Law. p. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture