The landmark and widely recited case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd1 needs no detailed explanation; suffice it to say that from it was borne the concept of corporate personality. Mr. Salomon’s circumstances indeed inspired such aptly phrased statements as ‘the company is ex…
Fundamentally, the House of Lords thus embedded the separation of the corporate personality from its members and it became its own entity, rendering it capable of suing and being sued; of entering into contracts;4 of owning property and of making profits and losses in its own name.5 The final element established was the widely famous advantages of limited liability enjoyed by shareholders, limited only to the unpaid amount of their shares. These principles have been referred to a reused in countless cases; Lord Templeman himself described the dicta in Salomon as an ‘unyielding rock’6 and it is now embodied in the Companies Act 2006.7
As is the case with most fundamental principles following a single landmark case, a broad debate has been alive since the decision. Indeed, the courts have been faced with circumstances in which exceptions to Salomon have been necessary and indeed allowed. Thus, one is faced with a fundamental principle, deemed to apply broadly, yet inevitably the court has managed to manoeuvre around the Solomon rules in order to make it more flexible. But is this really flexibility, or an undesired and confusing method of applying the rules simply whenever the court deems fit or not? This topic is linked to clarity – if one can arrive at a clear set of circumstances under which the corporate veil will not be lifted, then one can arrive at the conclusion that the Salomon decision is safely applicable. If these circumstances are not evident, then it seems that the courts apply it or not at whim, and the Salomon case is at the mercy of the court and its view of whether the veil should be lifted in the particular circumstances or not. The specifics of these circumstances are affected by the two different views surrounding the consequences of separate legal personality. The narrow view - as that contained in the Companies Acts - holds ...
Cite this document
(“Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 5”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/384653-company-law
(Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words - 5)
“Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words - 5”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/384653-company-law.
The study helps to analyze the legal matters associated with the companies act and to distinguish between situations under which a person serving for the organization are held guilty and in situations where he is simply let off. It can concluded that the court of Law is very much strict with matters of fraud and punishes the convict and provides him with no opportunity to hide behind the reasons of serving his obligation for the company.
This paper seeks to perform an IRAC analysis of fraudulent phoenix activity, whereby the issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion will be made. Issue Australian corporate law has always sought to reinforce commercial and entrepreneurial risk taking, since these are essential to the creation of wealth, as well as the continuous functioning of the market (Adams, 2012).
Note however, that the arbitration system and enforcement capacities also have a role to play as far as business law is concerned. Under this sphere are the commercial courts and the specialized economic courts. They come in when transactions between parties are not honored.
The law outlines that directors cannot receive any benefit from their position, unless they obtain an express legal authority from the board to do so. The Companies Act outlines that a director of a company must to circumvent situations in which the director possess, or can manifest an express or indirect interest that diverges of may clash with the interests of the company.
It has been enforced with the intention to govern the operations of the corporate houses of the country and instructs them to operate with the best interest of all the stakeholders involved with them1. As per the Company Law, it is commonly admitted that company is a separate legal entity which advocates that the members of the company are distinct from the corporate body.
It is particularly owing to the fact that the extension of the case led to the foundation of the Salomon principles in relation to Company Law related statutes. The principle, in simple terms, implies that the company has been legally incorporated and accordingly it should be considered as an independent person with certain specific rights along with liabilities to guide its operations.
g the position of director, by whatever name called", which includes a person who is treated by the board as such despite not having been validly appointed. The law also recognises the concept of shadow director, which is defined by section 251.
In the shareholder-centred view
When legal provisions that govern the interaction of employers and employees are violated, or when either party fails to meet their legal obligations, lawsuits are highly likely to occur. In the Chandler v Cape plc  EWCA 525 case, a health and safety issue resulted in a
In other words, this verdict has provided a veil between an owner and a company and through this veil the owner would not be personally blamed or persecuted if corporate actions have been taken on behalf of the company; Thereby, the company would itself be
10 Pages(2500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Company Law for FREE!