Intro The principle of the separate legal entity was established in the case of Salomon v A Salomon &Co Ltd. it is difficult to pierce the separate legal entity of the company as the House of Lords approach Companies Act in Salomon. However, it was the job of the courts to deviate from the legal fiction in the absence of any statutory regulations. Therefore, a good understanding of separate corporate personality is essential to understanding what company law is about. One will first examine the Salomon case to determine the important and rational of the concept of separate legal entity which often referred to as the “veil of incorporation”. Further, one will examine how a company use as a method of fraud when limited liability linked with …show more content…
Salomon case brought an idea to the whole world that the company is separate from it member and completely independent with rights and duties distinct from those possessed by its shareholders. S15 (1) make it clear that the company is incorporated, therefore, is treated as a legal person. Thus, a company could own property, to be party to a contract and is protected under some of human rights as an artificial person. Since the decision in Salomon case, the separation between members and a company has never been doubted. Theoretically, Salomon’s case was a good decision where become the motivating force of capitalism to invest to the company. This is undoubtedly good as the investors were an important source of fund to the company. However this doctrine is problematic in reality as it brings the benefit of incorporation to small sole enterprises. Salomon’s case has provided a flaw to the subscribers of a company to avoid from their liability. Although the problem of Salomon’s principle does exist, however, it has stood the test of time and remained various types of practical functions for the commercial market such as financing methods and specialised …show more content…
This means the company members does not need to sell their personal assets to pay the debts of the company when bankrupt. The company have no power to required fully paid shareholder to pay any further sum of money into the company. In contrast, the company could call up shareholders who have not pay the fully amount of their share to pay at any time. All shareholders have to be treated equally when calls are made. However, S581 (a) had allow a company to set up in articles of association of the company to make different calls on different shareholder at different time. Limited liability was very controversial as it shifting the burden of business breakdown from investors to creditors. It was perceived unfair to the creditors to bear the consequences of liquidation. It is unjust to attribute limited liability to a small company, where there is no business risk or need to encourage outside
In the above case, Alexa Ltd is insolvent. According to section 95A, “A company is if that company could not payback its debts as and when the become due.” Section 588G can be applied if the person is a director at the time company incurs a debt, company becomes insolvent as a result of the debt and there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that company is or would become insolvent. A director is liable if at the time the debt occur, he was aware of the presence of reasonable ground to suspect insolvency or a person in a similar position in similar firm would have been so
This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .
The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability
Lipton, P. & Herzberg, A. (2010). Understanding Company Law. (15th ed.). Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.
The Appellate and trial court decisions were affirmed and the Court found for the Defendant. The Court held that ‘piercing the corporate veil’ is invoked to ‘prevent fraud or to achieve equity’. In this case the Court found no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation nor illegality. Although the defendant controlled Westerlea’s affairs, Westerlea maintained an outward appearance of aDseparate corporate identity at all times. Further, the creditors were not misled, there was no fraud, and Defendant performed no act to cause injury to the creditors of Westerlea by depletion of assets or otherwise.
This is the most common type of company and is what most people have in mind when considering whether or not to set up a company. Each shareholder’s liability is limited to the amount unpaid on the shareholding owned by them. However, the shareholder must also be aware that they run the risk of losing monies paid to the company whether in full or part payment of the shares owned by them.
This made the corporation a separate legal person acting in its own rights under the law, this
Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.
Although doctrine of separate legal entity has the greatest importance in company law, it contains weaknesses that could be arguable. Professor Kahn-Freund described the doctrine as “calamitous” because it arise many issues, such as “How is it possible to check the one-man company and other abuse of company law?” Separate legal entity is inadequate for complex problems .
o Weakness: there is a societal imbalance in the distribution of resources, and it is virtually impossible for courts/legislatures to make important decisions that do not make someone worse off
The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.
There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real
The decision of Salomon v. Salomon which brought about the doctrine of separate legal personality is one which has evolved over time. Over a century and still counting, the principle illustrated in Salomon, courts have are still reluctant in placing limitations on corporate personality and rejecting other approaches which pose as a greater challenge to the doctrine . From time immemorial, judicial history, lawyers and judges have reiterated that the doctrine of corporation is an intangible legal entity, without the body and soul. In Athanasian terms, the orthodox doctrine of corporation as a legal person, separate and distinct from the personality of the members who compose it, has been defined and propagated .
Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.