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.
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.
The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law 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 ...
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 Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning lifting the corporate veil . It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud.
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 ...
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.
Walkovszky v. Carlton, 223 N.E.2d 6 (N.Y. 1966), [1] is a United States corporate law decision on the conditions under which Courts may pierce the corporate veil. A cab company had shielded itself from liability by incorporating each cab as its own corporation. The New York Court of Appeals refused to pierce the veil on account of ...