What is the key concern in cases after Salomon v Salomon?
Whether companies have separate legal personality
Whether companies are duly incorporated
Whether the controlling member tries to evade personal liabilities
The corporate veil will be pierced if the parent company owns all shares in a subsidiary.
In what context of consequences of a company's separate legal personality would you find Lee v Lee's Air Farming?
Company owns its own property
Legal proceedings (company sues and is sued in its own name)
Separate focus for contract (company enter into contracts into its own account)
What is the outcome of Persad v Singh?
Piercing the veil not accepted even when the owner tries to avoid personal liability.
Piercing the veil only if the owner tries to avoid personal liability.
Piercing the veil can be justified when a relationship of agency exists between the company and one of its controlling members.
A statutory provision can vary the general rule of separate legal personality (i.e. pierce the veil) in pursuit of other policy objectives.
Under which of the following circumstances we won't consider a company is an agent of a controlling member and, thus, the court pierces the veil?
If there are unusual circumstances raising a clear presumption that such agency relationship exists.
Where an express agency agreement is enforced.
Where there is a presumed resulting agency which is not rebutted.
For a member to directly accept liability as a guarantee he only needs to fill a legal form (under Statute of Fraus 1677 s.4), which must be written and signed by or on behalf of the guarantor.
Why did the Court decide to pierce the veil in the Petrodel v Prest case?
Unusual circumstances raising clear presumption of agency.
Prest directly accepted liability as a guarantee.
Presumed resulting trust which was not rebutted.
Unusual circumstances raising clear presumption of trust.
A parent company will never be jointly or vicariously liable for the torts attributable to its subsidiary.
Which of the following does not apply to the narrow scope of the court's special power to pierce the veil?
Combat fraud
Prevent abuse by the company
Penalize unconscionable behaviour
What principle can explain the outcomes of Gilford Motor v Horne; and Jones v Lipman?
Evasion
Concealment
Resulting trust
The concealment principle involves piercing the veil.
For a legal proceeding to be brought against an overseas company and its UK-based parent in UK courts there are 2 requirements: i) C establishes that there is an case against at least one UK-based party ( defendant); ii) C has been affected by the activities of its overseas subsidiary.
What case seems to open the doors to accept guidelines from the parent company as a means of assuming responsibility over the subsidiary?
AAA v Unilever
Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc
