Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person , which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed.
Lifting the corporate veil, employee Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill [1999] EWCA Civ 781 is a UK company law and UK labour law case, which relates to issues such as lifting the corporate veil and the definition of " employee ".
Aaron argued that Properties was a separate legal person, and it was inappropriate to pierce the corporate veil in this circumstance. However, the jury ruled that it could be pierced and that Aaron should pay. [2] Aaron appealed.
Lifting the veil Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . It exemplifies the principal case in which the veil will be lifted, that is, when a company is used as a "mere facade" concealing the "true facts", which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre-existing obligation.
Fraud, lifting the veil Re Darby, ex parte Brougham [1911] 1 KB 95 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . It is a clear example of the courts ignoring the veil of incorporation where a company is used to conceal a fraudulent operation.
To reach this conclusion the Court examined the requirements to "lift the veil". Wilson J. explained: The law on when a court may disregard this principle by "lifting the corporate veil" and regarding the company as a mere "agent" or a "puppet" of its controlling shareholder or a parent corporation follows no consistent principle.
Fraud, lifting the veil Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) , [ 1 ] that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim .
Sir Andrew Morritt VC held that there was enough evidence to lift the veil on the basis that it was a "mere facade". He noted the tension between Adams v Cape Industries plc and later cases and stated that impropriety is not enough to pierce the veil, but the court is entitled to do so where a company is used ‘as a device or façade to conceal the true facts and the liability of the ...