819:"There was no major disagreement between counsel on the legal principles by reference to which a court is entitled to "pierce" or "rend" or "remove" the "corporate veil". It is "hornbook" law that a duly formed and registered company is a separate legal entity from those who are its shareholders and it has rights and liabilities that are separate from its shareholders. A court can "pierce" the carapace of the corporate entity and look at what lies behind it only in certain circumstances. It cannot do so simply because it considers it might be just to do so. Each of these circumstances involves impropriety and dishonesty. The court will then be entitled to look for the legal substance, not the just the form. In the context of criminal cases the courts have identified at least three situations when the corporate veil can be pierced. First if an offender attempts to shelter behind a corporate façade, or veil to hide his crime and his benefits from it. Secondly, where an offender does acts in the name of a company which (with the necessary
538:, which would secure his debt in priority to other creditors in the event of insolvency. The company did go insolvent, and the company liquidator, acting on behalf of unpaid creditors attempted to sue Mr Salomon personally. Although the Court of Appeal held that Mr Salomon had defeated Parliament's purpose in registering dummy shareholders, and would have made him indemnify the company, the House of Lords held that so long as the simple formal requirements of registration were followed, the shareholders' assets must be treated as separate from the separate legal person that is a company. There could not, in general, be any lifting of the veil.
76:) or charitable establishments would be the primary examples of corporations. Without a body to be kicked or a soul to be damned, a corporation does not itself suffer penalties administered by courts, but those who stand to lose their investments will. A company will, as a separate person, be the first liable entity for any obligations its directors and employees create on its behalf. If a company does not have enough assets to pay its debts as they fall due, it will be
1462:
498:
48:
148:, the default position for companies can be switched back so that shareholders or directors do agree to pay off all debts. If a company's investors do not do this, so their limited liability is not "contracted around", their assets will (generally) be protected from claims of creditors. The assets are beyond reach behind the metaphorical "veil of incorporation".
1066:(1731–1806), who is said to have asked rhetorically, "did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked?" Though it seems his exact phrase was, "Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like."
869:
223 N.E.2d 6 (NY 1966) where the New York Court of
Appeals refused to pierce the veil merely because a subsidiary was undercapitalised. A corporation was set up for every taxi cab in that was in fact being run by Mr Carlton's company, each with $ 10,000 of insurance. One of the cab's hit a pedestrian
809:
monies received by a company can, depending upon the particular facts of the case as found by the court, be regarded as having been 'obtained' by an individual (who is usually, but not always, a director of the company). In consequence those monies may become an element in the individual's 'benefit'
512:
If a company goes insolvent, there are certain situations where the courts lift the veil of incorporation on a limited company, and make shareholders or directors contribute to paying off outstanding debts to creditors. However, in UK law the range of circumstances is heavily limited. This is usually
32:
The corporate veil in the UK is, however, capable of being "lifted", so that the people who run the company are treated as being liable for its debts, or can benefit from its rights, in a very limited number of circumstances defined by the courts. It generally only happens when there is wrongdoing by
722:
unit. Because the companies' shareholders and controlling minds were identical, their rights were to be treated as the same. This allowed the parent company to claim compensation from the council for compulsory purchase of its business, which it could not have done without showing an address on the
131:
is unlimited (companies have to pay all they owe with the assets they have), but the liability of those who invest their capital in a company is (generally) limited to their shares, and those who invest their labour can only lose their jobs. However, limited liability acts merely as a default
126:
cannot (generally) seek contributions from the company's shareholders and employees, even if shareholders and employees profited handsomely before a company's fortunes declined or would bear primary responsibility for the losses under ordinary civil law principles. The liability of a company
24:
for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are, as a general principle, the responsibility of that company alone. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person, unless they have expressly or implicitly assumed
606:
principle, though their restrictive scope is not wholly stable. The present rule under
English law is that only where a company was set up to commission fraud, or to avoid a pre-existing obligation can its separate identity be ignored. This follows from the leading case,
654:
victims, who are unable to contract around limited liability and may be left only with a worthless claim against a bankrupt entity, has been ameliorated in cases where a duty of care in negligence may be deemed to be owed directly across the veil of incorporation.
579:
said that trading with any person of "enemy character" would be an offence. So even though the
Continental Tyre Co Ltd was a "legal person" incorporated in the UK (and therefore British) its directors and shareholders were German (and therefore enemies, while the
882:
pierced a veil so a girl who drowned in a swimming pool would be compensated, saying parent companies or shareholders would be treated as liable "when they provide inadequate capitalization and actively participate in the conduct of corporate
629:
principles, this could only be done if Cape
Industries plc was treated as "present" in America through its US subsidiary (i.e. ignoring the separate legal personality of the two companies). Rejecting the claim, and following the reasoning in
560:, section 214 stipulates that company directors must contribute to payment of company debts in winding up if they kept the business running up more debt when they ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency.
71:
English law recognised long ago that a corporation would have "legal personality". Legal personality simply means the entity is the subject of legal rights and duties. It can sue and be sued. Historically, municipal councils (such as the
707:
is involved, since it is not clear that companies and actual people ought to get the protection of limited liability in identical ways. An influential decision, although subsequently doubted strongly by the House of Lords, was passed by
827:, paragraph 16. Thirdly, where the transaction or business structures constitute a "device", "cloak" or "sham", i.e. an attempt to disguise the true nature of the transaction or structure so as to deceive third parties or the courts."
891:
939 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991) the veil was pierced where its enforcement would not have matched the purpose of limited liability. Here a corporation was undercapitalised and was only used to shield a shareholder's other company from
1256:, Mr Lipman sold his house to a company. Russell J held that this attempt to avoid a pre-existing obligation meant the court could ignore the separate legal identity of the company and award specific performance as a remedy anyway.
25:
responsibility, guaranteed or indemnified the other person, as a general principle shareholders, directors and employees cannot be bound by the rights and duties of a corporation. This concept has traditionally been likened to a "
1061:
AC 705, he submitted that the company as such was only a juristic figment of the imagination, lacking both a body to be kicked and a soul to be damned." n.b. Lord
Haldane never used such figurative words. They may trace back to
810:
obtained from criminal conduct (and hence subject to confiscation from him). A useful brief summary of the position regarding 'piercing the veil' in
English criminal law was given in the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of
568:
A number of other cases demonstrate that in construing the meaning of a statute unrelated to company law, the purpose of the legislation should be fulfilled regardless of the existence of a corporate form. For example, in
1054:
1 WLR 1133, per Walton J, "Mr. Price argued that, in effect, there are two separate sets of persons in whom authority to activate the company itself resides. Quoting the well known passages from
Viscount Haldane LC in
762:
UKSC, held that where the shares in a company had been pledged, that company ceased to be a subsidiary company CA 1985 s 736, now CA 2006 s 1159 and Sch 6, because the company which pledged the shares ceased to be a
900:
974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992) holding that no piercing could take place merely to prevent "unfairness" or "injustice", where a corporation in a real estate building partnership could not pay its share of a lawsuit
727:" as single economic entities exist in many continental European jurisdictions. This is done for tax and accounting purposes in English law, however for general civil liability the rule still followed is that in
636:, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the US subsidiary had been set up for a lawful purpose of creating a group structure overseas, and had not aimed to circumvent liability in the event of asbestos litigation.
1191:
896:
571:
917:
306 U.S. 307 (1939), insiders who become creditors of a company are subordinated to other creditors when the company goes insolvent. This will happen where it is "equitable", and is known as the "Deep Rock
1311:
337:
1344:. See C Alting, 'Piercing the corporate veil in German and American law - Liability of individuals and entities: a comparative view' (1994–1995) 2 Tulsa Journal Comparative & International Law 187.
1112:
in the case of a company limited by shares, no contribution is required from any member exceeding the amount (if any) unpaid on the shares in respect of which he is liable as a present or past member'.
33:
the people/person in control. This matters mostly when a company has gone insolvent, because unpaid creditors will wish to recover their money if they can prove wrongdoing by the people in control.
996:
1317:
1389:
C Alting, 'Piercing the corporate veil in German and
American law - Liability of individuals and entities: a comparative view' (1994–1995) 2 Tulsa Journal Comparative & International Law 187
84:(someone like an auditing firm partner, usually appointed by creditors on a company's insolvency) is able to rescue the business, shareholders will lose their money, employees will lose their
1428:
1057:
1450:
805:
In
English criminal law there have been cases in which the courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of incorporation. For example, in confiscation proceedings under the
1175:
Or "shadow directors", defined under IA 1986 s 251 as "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act". See
1370:
534:. Mr Salomon met this requirement by getting six family members to subscribe for one share each. Then, in return for money he lent the company, he made the company issue a
823:) constitute a criminal offence which leads to the offender's conviction, then "the veil of incorporation is not so much pierced as rudely torn away": per Lord Bingham in
530:. At that time, seven people were required to register a company, possibly because the legislature had viewed the appropriate business vehicle for fewer people to be a
556:
is open to a series of qualifications. Most significantly, statute may require directly or indirectly that the company not be treated as a separate entity. Under the
960:
92:
will be appointed to sell off any remaining assets to distribute as much as possible to unpaid creditors. Yet if business remains successful, a company can persist
447:
926:, 607P 2d 924 (Cal), 449 US 912 (1980), California Supreme Court holds drug manufacturers liable to injured victims according to their portion of market share
208:
1443:
1291:
164:
1267:
1050:
349:
664:
AC 12, a statutory compensation system in part operated because the veil was not lifted, and a director was treated as a worker of the company
1297:
1105:
1015:, & resteth only in intendment and consideration of the Law; and therefore it cannot have predecessor nor successor. They may not commit
29:" of separation between the legal entity of a corporation and the real people who invest their money and labor into a company's operations.
1436:
1999:
1588:
313:
251:
144:). Just as it is possible for two contracting parties to stipulate in an agreement that one's liability will be limited in the event of
1883:
1063:
1398:
P Halpern, M Trebilcock and S Turnbull, 'An
Economic Analysis of Limited Liability' (1980) 30 University of Toronto Law Journal 117
1357:, 'Lifting the Corporate Veil in the. English Courts: An Empirical Study' (1999) 3 Company, Financial and Insolvency Law Review 15.
1416:, 'Lifting the Corporate Veil in the. English Courts: An Empirical Study' (1999) 3 Company, Financial and Insolvency Law Review 15
733:. It is very rare for English courts to lift the veil. The liability of the company is generally attributed to the company alone.
1367:
660:
1139:
738:
576:
515:
461:
237:
201:
922:
857:
433:
1163:
275:
405:
1733:
1035:, for an invisible body cannot be in person, nor can swear, it is not subject to imbecilities, or death of the natural,
991:
263:
225:
758:
718:. Here Lord Denning MR held that a group of companies, two subsidiaries wholly owned by a parent, constituted a single
688:
EWHC 951 (QB) held that a parent company (Cape plc) owed a duty of care to one of the employees of a subsidiary company
1773:
1225:
729:
609:
178:
136:
to do so. A bank, for instance, may not lend to a small company unless the company's director gives her own house as
1728:
1285:
913:
887:
806:
714:
194:
42:
157:
1648:
1211:
1085:
476:
1818:
1568:
1513:
767:
668:
1858:
1708:
1558:
1177:
750:
618:
501:
363:
905:
391:
119:
1768:
1688:
870:
and damages were more than the insurance, but by a majority the court held the veil could not be lifted.
865:
73:
52:
874:
703:
Even if tort victims might be protected, the restrictive position remains subject to criticism where a
754:
2 BCLC 447, Court of Appeal overturns High Court that treats a company group as a single economic unit
1863:
1763:
1548:
1401:
H Hansmann and R Kraakman, 'The Essential Role of Organizational Law' (2000) 110 Yale Law Journal 387
1323:
1253:
1210:
1 WLR 483, where the film 'Monsoon', although owned by a UK company, was considered "made" under the
1206:
783:
625:. They were suing in New York to make Cape Industries plc pay for the debts of the subsidiary. Under
589:
325:
301:
81:
1683:
1603:
1099:
684:
557:
419:
1279:
1273:
1102:
841:
1928:
1788:
1498:
1341:
788:
743:
724:
531:
527:
472:
145:
60:
1783:
1758:
723:
premises that its subsidiary possessed. Similar approaches to treating corporate "groups" or a "
497:
1908:
1798:
1523:
941:
505:
353:
182:
137:
111:
105:
96:, even as the natural people who invest in it and carry out its business change or pass away.
1152:
See R Grantham, 'The Doctrinal Basis of Company Law' (1998) 57 Cambridge Law Journal 554, 560
1948:
1848:
1633:
794:
676:
645:
626:
547:
377:
133:
89:
1718:
1698:
1503:
1374:
1109:
986:
812:
709:
698:
581:
115:
64:
132:
position. It can be "contracted around", provided creditors have the opportunity and the
423:
395:
367:
279:
1953:
1873:
1833:
1748:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1248:
936:
632:
487:
409:
289:
56:
21:
861:, Cardozo J decides there was no right to pierce the veil for a personal injury victim
1993:
1933:
1828:
1823:
1803:
1658:
1653:
1593:
1508:
1493:
1488:
1404:
1020:
879:
780:
704:
141:
1958:
1918:
1913:
1893:
1067:
824:
437:
381:
451:
241:
47:
1336:
This terminology follows from AA Berle, 'The Theory of Enterprise Entity' (1947)
1813:
1623:
1553:
1538:
1518:
1012:
520:
961:"Piercing the corporate veil: Supreme Court clarifies the English law position"
1968:
1868:
1413:
1354:
1036:
774:
186:
85:
1973:
1898:
1878:
1853:
1743:
1678:
1613:
1122:
1008:
535:
523:
77:
1963:
1943:
1903:
1808:
1738:
1663:
1643:
1598:
1583:
1573:
1543:
820:
719:
622:
614:
123:
93:
1978:
1923:
1838:
1753:
1723:
1713:
1668:
1628:
1608:
1408:
1016:
1693:
1673:
1638:
1618:
1032:
1028:
1778:
1533:
1393:
1337:
504:, where Aron Salomon, the most famous litigant in company law, went
1192:
Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd
897:
Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc.
572:
Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd
1938:
1888:
1793:
1578:
1528:
496:
46:
1843:
1703:
1312:
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council
1292:
Canada Safeway Ltd v Local 373, Canadian Food and Allied Workers
1024:
651:
26:
1432:
190:
1004:
1318:
Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland Revenue Commissioners
1051:
Northern Counties Securities Ltd v Jackson & Steeple Ltd
1563:
1483:
1003:, and resteth onely in intendment and consideration of the
122:". This means that if a company does go insolvent, unpaid
746:
by a director of an insolvent subsidiary against a parent
999:; 77 Eng Rep 960, 973, "the Corporation itself is onely
1298:
Dimbleby & Sons Ltd v National Union of Journalists
1058:
Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd
1469:companies of the United Kingdom →
1392:AA Berle, 'The Theory of Enterprise Entity' (1947)
1407:, 'Some Reflections on Company Law Reform' (1944)
1368:"Confiscation: lifting the veil of incorporation"
742:B.C.C. 638, now overruled, enforcing a claim for
67:, is an early example of a separate legal person.
1214:by the Americans who financed and worked on it.
771:ICR 161, strike action against a parent company
1444:
202:
8:
1031:. A Corporation aggregate of many cannot do
1027:, neither can they appear in person, but by
779:EU Seventh Company Law Directive 83/349, on
602:There are also case based exceptions to the
1451:
1437:
1429:
209:
195:
187:
114:for their members, seen in the suffix of "
1007:; for a Corporation aggregate of many is
793:EU Draft Ninth Company Law Directive, on
617:diseases after working for the American
165:Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd
1268:Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council
1252:1 WLR 832, where to avoid an order for
952:
513:said to derive from the "principle" in
350:Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council
816:in which the court said (at para 76):
1295:(1974) 46 DLR (3d) 113, and contrast
7:
526:incorporated his business under the
20:is a metaphorical reference used in
18:corporate veil in the United Kingdom
448:VTB Capital plc v Nutritek Int Corp
314:Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v IRC
252:Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd
1884:Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust
967:. Ince & Co. 23 September 2013
14:
878:, 56 Cal. 2.d 576 (1961) Justice
759:Farstad Supply A/S v Enviroco Ltd
1460:
1140:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
613:. A group of employees suffered
516:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
238:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
739:Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd
577:Trading with the Enemy Act 1914
462:Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc
1127:An Introduction to Company Law
923:Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
858:Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway
434:Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
1:
1394:47(3) Columbia Law Review 343
1338:47(3) Columbia Law Review 343
406:Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2)
1734:International Airlines Group
1083:For a very old example, see
598:Avoiding a pre-existing duty
264:Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne
158:Assumption of responsibility
152:Assumption of responsibility
1774:London Stock Exchange Group
1340:, and is a concept used in
1226:Re Darby, ex parte Brougham
1212:Cinematograph Film Act 1948
1164:Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
1086:Edmunds v Brown and Tillard
1048:The turn of phrase used in
730:Adams v Cape Industries plc
661:Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd
610:Adams v Cape Industries plc
338:DHN Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC
276:Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
217:Corporate personality cases
179:Piercing the corporate veil
2016:
2000:United Kingdom company law
1729:Intermediate Capital Group
1649:F & C Investment Trust
1286:Bank of Tokyo Ltd v Karoon
1271:(1978) SLT 159; see also,
1039:, and divers other cases."
914:Taylor v. Standard Gas Co.
909:8 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995)
888:Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan
813:R v Seager EWCA Crim 1303
807:Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
715:DHN Ltd v Tower Hamlets BC
696:
643:
545:
519:. In this leading case, a
176:
155:
103:
43:Separate legal personality
40:
37:Separate legal personality
1479:
992:Case of Sutton's Hospital
831:International comparisons
484:
470:
458:
444:
430:
416:
402:
388:
374:
360:
346:
334:
322:
310:
298:
286:
272:
260:
248:
234:
226:Case of Sutton's Hospital
222:
1819:Pershing Square Holdings
1709:IHG Hotels & Resorts
1569:British American Tobacco
1514:Associated British Foods
1074:(1844) vol 1, p 2 or 268
768:Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs
1559:Berkeley Group Holdings
1178:Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd
1064:Lord Chancellor Thurlow
1019:, nor be outlawed, nor
751:Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd
669:Connelly v RTZ Corp Plc
619:wholly owned subsidiary
502:Whitechapel High Street
364:Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd
140:for the loan (e.g., by
1409:7 Modern Law Review 54
509:
392:Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby
80:- bankrupt. Unless an
68:
1769:LondonMetric Property
1689:Hikma Pharmaceuticals
1129:(Clarendon 2002) ch 4
906:Fletcher v. Atex, Inc
866:Walkovszky v. Carlton
500:
110:Most companies adopt
74:Corporation of London
53:Corporation of London
50:
1764:Lloyds Banking Group
1549:Barratt Developments
1324:Wallersteiner v Moir
1315:1 WLR 852; see also
1254:specific performance
1089:(1668) 83 ER 385-387
650:The harsh effect on
590:Tunstall v Steigmann
326:Wallersteiner v Moir
302:Tunstall v Steigmann
59:from the Griffin at
55:, which governs the
1784:Marks & Spencer
1759:Legal & General
1684:Hargreaves Lansdown
1604:Croda International
1100:Insolvency Act 1986
1023:, for they have no
685:Chandler v Cape plc
623:Cape Industries plc
584:was being fought).
558:Insolvency Act 1986
420:Chandler v Cape plc
1929:Standard Chartered
1909:Smith & Nephew
1789:Melrose Industries
1373:2013-07-04 at the
1342:German company law
1108:2010-07-24 at the
846:Durchgriffshaftung
789:Concern (business)
744:wrongful dismissal
528:Companies Act 1862
510:
479:arts 1(2)(d) and 4
473:Rome II Regulation
146:contractual breach
69:
1987:
1986:
1524:Auto Trader Group
1474:
1072:Literary Extracts
942:UK insolvency law
875:Minton v. Cavaney
564:Statutory purpose
552:The principle in
494:
493:
183:UK insolvency law
112:limited liability
106:Limited liability
100:Limited liability
2007:
1949:United Utilities
1849:Rentokil Initial
1634:Endeavour Mining
1470:
1465:
1464:
1453:
1446:
1439:
1430:
1378:
1364:
1358:
1351:
1345:
1334:
1328:
1308:
1302:
1263:
1257:
1245:
1239:
1236:
1230:
1221:
1215:
1202:
1196:
1188:
1182:
1173:
1167:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1144:
1136:
1130:
1119:
1113:
1096:
1090:
1081:
1075:
1046:
1040:
989:remarked in the
983:
977:
976:
974:
972:
957:
795:corporate groups
677:Lubbe v Cape Plc
646:English tort law
627:conflict of laws
548:Wrongful trading
542:Wrongful trading
378:Lubbe v Cape Plc
229:(1612) 77 ER 960
211:
204:
197:
188:
173:Lifting the veil
134:bargaining power
2015:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2006:
2005:
2004:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1983:
1754:Land Securities
1719:Imperial Brands
1699:Howdens Joinery
1475:
1459:
1457:
1423:
1386:
1381:
1375:Wayback Machine
1365:
1361:
1352:
1348:
1335:
1331:
1309:
1305:
1289:AC 45n, 64; cf
1264:
1260:
1246:
1242:
1237:
1233:
1222:
1218:
1207:Re FG Films Ltd
1203:
1199:
1189:
1185:
1174:
1170:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1137:
1133:
1121:See generally,
1120:
1116:
1110:Wayback Machine
1097:
1093:
1082:
1078:
1047:
1043:
987:Sir Edward Coke
984:
980:
970:
968:
959:
958:
954:
950:
933:
853:
838:
833:
803:
710:Lord Denning MR
701:
699:Corporate group
695:
648:
642:
600:
582:First World War
566:
550:
544:
495:
490:
480:
466:
454:
440:
426:
412:
398:
384:
370:
356:
342:
330:
318:
306:
294:
282:
268:
256:
244:
230:
218:
215:
185:
175:
160:
154:
108:
102:
65:Tower of London
45:
39:
12:
11:
5:
2013:
2011:
2003:
2002:
1992:
1991:
1985:
1984:
1982:
1981:
1976:
1971:
1966:
1961:
1956:
1951:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1916:
1911:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1891:
1886:
1881:
1876:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1821:
1816:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1756:
1751:
1746:
1741:
1736:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1716:
1711:
1706:
1701:
1696:
1691:
1686:
1681:
1676:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1656:
1651:
1646:
1641:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1596:
1591:
1586:
1581:
1576:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1551:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1531:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1499:Anglo American
1496:
1491:
1486:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1448:
1441:
1433:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1421:External links
1419:
1418:
1417:
1411:
1402:
1399:
1396:
1390:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1379:
1359:
1346:
1329:
1303:
1258:
1249:Jones v Lipman
1240:
1231:
1216:
1197:
1183:
1168:
1154:
1145:
1131:
1114:
1091:
1076:
1041:
978:
951:
949:
946:
945:
944:
939:
937:UK company law
932:
929:
928:
927:
919:
910:
902:
893:
884:
871:
862:
852:
849:
848:
847:
844:
837:
834:
832:
829:
825:Jennings v CPS
802:
799:
798:
797:
791:
786:
777:
772:
764:
755:
747:
697:Main article:
694:
693:Company groups
691:
690:
689:
681:
673:
665:
644:Main article:
641:
638:
633:Jones v Lipman
599:
596:
595:
594:
565:
562:
554:Salomon's case
546:Main article:
543:
540:
492:
491:
488:UK company law
485:
482:
481:
471:
468:
467:
459:
456:
455:
445:
442:
441:
431:
428:
427:
417:
414:
413:
403:
400:
399:
396:EWHC 1560 (Ch)
389:
386:
385:
375:
372:
371:
361:
358:
357:
347:
344:
343:
335:
332:
331:
323:
320:
319:
311:
308:
307:
299:
296:
295:
290:Jones v Lipman
287:
284:
283:
273:
270:
269:
261:
258:
257:
249:
246:
245:
235:
232:
231:
223:
220:
219:
216:
214:
213:
206:
199:
191:
174:
171:
170:
169:
156:Main article:
153:
150:
104:Main article:
101:
98:
38:
35:
22:UK company law
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2012:
2001:
1998:
1997:
1995:
1980:
1977:
1975:
1972:
1970:
1967:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1957:
1955:
1952:
1950:
1947:
1945:
1942:
1940:
1937:
1935:
1934:Taylor Wimpey
1932:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1920:
1917:
1915:
1912:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1897:
1895:
1892:
1890:
1887:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1829:Phoenix Group
1827:
1825:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1804:NatWest Group
1802:
1800:
1799:National Grid
1797:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1747:
1745:
1742:
1740:
1737:
1735:
1732:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1722:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1712:
1710:
1707:
1705:
1702:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1692:
1690:
1687:
1685:
1682:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1662:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1654:Frasers Group
1652:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1642:
1640:
1637:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1594:Compass Group
1592:
1590:
1589:Coca-Cola HBC
1587:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1522:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1510:
1509:Ashtead Group
1507:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1494:Airtel Africa
1492:
1490:
1489:Admiral Group
1487:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1478:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1454:
1449:
1447:
1442:
1440:
1435:
1434:
1431:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1406:
1405:O Kahn-Freund
1403:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1366:David Winch,
1363:
1360:
1356:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1333:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1288:
1287:
1283:1 BCC 99421;
1282:
1281:
1277:AC 774, 807;
1276:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1244:
1241:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1227:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1158:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:excommunicate
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
988:
982:
979:
966:
962:
956:
953:
947:
943:
940:
938:
935:
934:
930:
925:
924:
920:
916:
915:
911:
908:
907:
903:
899:
898:
894:
890:
889:
885:
881:
880:Roger Traynor
877:
876:
872:
868:
867:
863:
860:
859:
855:
854:
851:United States
850:
845:
843:
840:
839:
835:
830:
828:
826:
822:
817:
815:
814:
808:
800:
796:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
778:
776:
773:
770:
769:
765:
761:
760:
756:
753:
752:
748:
745:
741:
740:
736:
735:
734:
732:
731:
726:
721:
717:
716:
711:
706:
705:company group
700:
692:
687:
686:
682:
679:
678:
674:
671:
670:
666:
663:
662:
658:
657:
656:
653:
647:
639:
637:
635:
634:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
605:
597:
592:
591:
587:
586:
585:
583:
578:
574:
573:
563:
561:
559:
555:
549:
541:
539:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
518:
517:
507:
503:
499:
489:
483:
478:
474:
469:
464:
463:
457:
453:
450:
449:
443:
439:
436:
435:
429:
425:
422:
421:
415:
411:
410:EWHC 703 (Ch)
408:
407:
401:
397:
394:
393:
387:
383:
380:
379:
373:
369:
366:
365:
359:
355:
352:
351:
345:
340:
339:
333:
328:
327:
321:
316:
315:
309:
304:
303:
297:
292:
291:
285:
281:
278:
277:
271:
266:
265:
259:
254:
253:
247:
243:
240:
239:
233:
228:
227:
221:
212:
207:
205:
200:
198:
193:
192:
189:
184:
180:
172:
167:
166:
162:
161:
159:
151:
149:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
107:
99:
97:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:administrator
79:
75:
66:
62:
58:
54:
49:
44:
36:
34:
30:
28:
23:
19:
1919:Spirax Group
1914:Smiths Group
1894:Severn Trent
1362:
1349:
1332:
1322:
1321:1 WLR 1214;
1316:
1310:
1306:
1301:1 All ER 751
1296:
1290:
1284:
1280:Re A Company
1278:
1274:The Albazero
1272:
1266:
1261:
1247:
1243:
1234:
1224:
1219:
1205:
1200:
1190:
1186:
1176:
1171:
1162:
1157:
1148:
1138:
1134:
1126:
1117:
1094:
1084:
1079:
1071:
1068:John Poynder
1056:
1049:
1044:
1001:in abstracto
1000:
990:
981:
969:. Retrieved
964:
955:
921:
912:
904:
895:
886:
873:
864:
856:
842:Konzernrecht
818:
811:
804:
801:Criminal law
766:
757:
749:
737:
728:
713:
702:
683:
675:
667:
659:
649:
640:Tort victims
631:
608:
603:
601:
588:
570:
567:
553:
551:
514:
511:
460:
446:
432:
424:EWCA Civ 525
418:
404:
390:
376:
368:EWCA Civ 243
362:
348:
336:
324:
312:
300:
288:
274:
262:
250:
236:
224:
163:
128:
109:
70:
31:
17:
15:
1954:Unite Group
1874:J Sainsbury
1864:Rolls-Royce
1539:BAE Systems
1519:AstraZeneca
1504:Antofagasta
971:20 November
965:incelaw.com
532:partnership
521:Whitechapel
57:Square Mile
1969:Weir Group
1869:Sage Group
1834:Prudential
1749:Kingfisher
1414:C Mitchell
1384:References
1355:C Mitchell
1204:See also,
1161:See also,
1103:s 74(2)(d)
918:doctrine".
775:UK tax law
680:1 WLR 1545
317:1 WLR 1214
177:See also:
90:liquidator
61:Temple Bar
41:See also:
1974:Whitbread
1879:Schroders
1859:Rio Tinto
1854:Rightmove
1824:Persimmon
1744:JD Sports
1659:Fresnillo
1614:Darktrace
1327:1 WLR 991
1123:PL Davies
1009:invisible
997:10 Rep 32
985:In 1612,
883:affairs."
536:debenture
506:insolvent
341:1 WLR 852
329:1 WLR 991
293:1 WLR 832
168:1 WLR 830
124:creditors
78:insolvent
1994:Category
1964:Vodafone
1944:Unilever
1904:DS Smith
1739:Intertek
1664:Glencore
1644:Experian
1599:Convatec
1584:Centrica
1574:BT Group
1544:Barclays
1472:FTSE 250
1467:FTSE 100
1371:Archived
1195:2 AC 307
1181:BCC 161.
1106:Archived
1029:Attorney
1013:immortal
931:See also
821:mens rea
784:accounts
720:economic
615:asbestos
593:2 QB 593
477:864/2007
475:(EC) No
305:2 QB 593
142:mortgage
138:security
1839:Reckitt
1814:Pearson
1779:M&G
1724:Informa
1629:EasyJet
1624:Diploma
1554:Beazley
1534:B&M
1229:1 KB 95
1017:treason
995:(1612)
836:Germany
763:member.
725:concern
604:Salomon
524:cobbler
465:UKSC 20
438:UKSC 34
382:UKHL 41
280:UKPC 33
94:forever
63:to the
1959:Vistry
1694:Hiscox
1674:Haleon
1639:Entain
1619:Diageo
1377:(2013)
1238:Ch 433
1033:fealty
892:debts.
672:AC 854
575:, the
452:UKSC 5
354:UKHL 5
267:Ch 935
255:AC 619
242:UKHL 1
129:itself
118:" or "
88:and a
1939:Tesco
1899:Shell
1889:Segro
1794:Mondi
1679:Halma
1579:Bunzl
1529:Aviva
1223:e.g.
1143:AC 22
1025:souls
948:Notes
781:group
1844:RELX
1809:Next
1704:HSBC
1353:See
1265:See
1098:See
1037:body
973:2016
901:bill
652:tort
486:see
181:and
86:jobs
51:The
27:veil
16:The
1979:WPP
1924:SSE
1714:IMI
1669:GSK
1609:DCC
1005:Law
712:in
621:of
120:plc
116:Ltd
1996::
1564:BP
1484:3i
1125:,
1070:,
1011:,
963:.
1452:e
1445:t
1438:v
975:.
508:.
210:e
203:t
196:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
