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.
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.
Piercing the corporate veil. 16. I should first of all draw attention to the limited sense in which this issue arises at all. "Piercing the corporate veil" is an expression rather indiscriminately used to describe a number of different things. Properly speaking, it means disregarding the separate personality of the company.
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.
Third, lifting the corporate veil. A further very interesting point was raised by Mr. Dobry on company law. We all know that in many respects a group of companies are treated together for the purpose of general accounts, balance sheet, and profit and loss account. They are treated as one concern.
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 .
Mr Richard Southwell lifted the corporate veil to enforce Mr Creasey's wrongful dismissal claim. He held that the directors of Breachwood Motors Ltd, who had also been directors of Breachwood Welwyn Ltd, had themselves deliberately ignored the separate legal personality of the companies by transferring assets between the companies without regard to their duties as directors and shareholders.