DOCSLIB.ORG

2 BCLC 646; [1998] 2 All ER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2 BCLC 646; [1998] 2 All ER Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Griffiths [1998] 2 BCLC 646; [1998] 2 All ER 124 (CA) 305 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Jonkler [2006] EWHC 135; [2006] 2 BCLC 239 307 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Reynard [2002] EWCA Civ 497; [2002] 2 BCLC 625 307 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Swan [2005] EWHC 603; [2005] BCC 596 (Ch) [6.09], 299 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Swan (No 2) [2005] EWHC 2479 (Ch) [6.11], 295, 302 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Tjolle [1998] 1 BCLC 333 314 Sedgefield Steeplechase Co (1927) Ltd, Re [2001] BCC 889 (CA) 498 (p. liv) Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 1 WLR 1555 (Ch) [10.11], 318, 540, 541, 549 Senex Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) v National Westminster Bank plc [2012] EWHC 131 (Comm) 327 Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd, Re [1991] Ch 164 (CA) [6.08], 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 Shah v Shah [2010] EWCA Civ 1408 585, 687 Shahar v Tsitsekkos [2004] EWHC 2659; [2004] All ER (D) 283 (Nov) 212 Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1986] BCLC 278 (Ch), affd [1991] BCLC 36 (CA) 786 Sharp v Dawes (1876) 2 QBD 26 (CA) [4.10], 194, 204 Sheffield Corpn v Barclay [1905] AC 392 (HL) 580 Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters [2006] EWHC 836; [2007] 2 BCLC 202 (Ch) [7.30], 349, 389, 392, 394 Shierson v Vlieland­Boddy [2005] EWCA Civ 974, [2005] BCC 949 16 Shindler v Northern Raincoat Co Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 1038 291 Short v Treasury Comrs [1948] AC 534 593 Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Co v R (1875) LR 7 HL 496 (HL) [11.15], 586 Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co (Maidenhead) Ltd [1927] 2 KB 9 (CA) [6.06], 130, 226, 227, 232, 292, 519 Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd [1920] 1 Ch 154 (CA) [4.23], 224, 227, 232, 293 Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 142 (Ch) 603, 604, 624, 628, 629, 630 Siemens Bros & Co Ltd v Burns [1918] 2 Ch 324 (CA) 217 Sikorski v Sikorski [2012] EWHC 1613 (Ch) 245, 697 Simm v Anglo­American Telegraph Co (1879) 5 QBD 188 (CA) 580 Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (In Administration) [2011] EWCA Civ 349, [2012] Ch 453 (CA) [7.38], 368, 369, 377, 428, 433, 434, 435, 486 Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd) v Bridgend County Borough Council [2001] UKHL 58; [2002] 1 AC 336 602 Smith and Fawcett Ltd, Re [1942] Ch 304 (CA) [11.10], 178, 331, 340, 342, 497, 575, 576, 577 Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA [1997] AC 254 (HL) 499, 503 Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500 (CA) 258 Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corpn [1939] 4 All ER 116 62, 69 Smith v Butler [2012] EWCA Civ 314 (CA) [3.14], 121, 196, 202, 287, 291, 444 Smith v Croft (No 2) [1988] Ch 114 (Ch) [13.17], 235, 437, 641, 646, 647, 660, 665, 669, 670 Smith v Henniker­Major and Co [2002] EWCA Civ 762; [2003] Ch 182 (CA) [3.05], 98, 103, 104, 105, 108 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 75 Smiths Ltd v Middleton [1979] 3 All ER 842 779 Snelling House Ltd (In Liquidation), Re [2012] EWHC 440 (CD) [7.03], 317 Snelling v John G Snelling Ltd [1973] QB 87; [1972] 1 All ER 79 244 Société Générale de Paris v Tramways Union Co (1884) 14 QBD 424 588, 589 South Australia Asset Management Corpn v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 (HL) 475 South of England Natural Gas and Petroleum Co Ltd, Re [1911] 1 Ch 573 499 South London Greyhound Racecourses Ltd v Wake [1931] 1 Ch 496 581, 583, 585 Southard & Co Ltd, Re [1979] 1 WLR 1198 (CA) 73, 808 Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 (HL) [6.04], 221, 246, 289, 291, 667 Sovereign Life Assurance Co v Dodd [1892] 2 QB 573 745, 746, 749 Spectrum Plus Ltd, Re [2005] UKHL 41; [2005] 2 AC 680 (HL) 603, 606, 624, 625, 628, 630, 631 SSSL Realisations Ltd, Re [2004] EWHC 1760; [2005] 1 BCLC 1 630 Stablewood Properties Ltd v Virdi [2010] EWCA Civ 865 217, 585 Stainer v Lee [2010] EWHC 1539 [13.05], [13.15], 652, 652, 658, 663, 665 Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker [1982] 1 WLR 1410 (CA) 774, 786 Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker [1992] 1 WLR 561; [1992] BCLC 603 (Ch) 216 Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corpn (No 2) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 218 (CA), overruled in [2002] UKHL 43; [2003] 1 AC 959 (HL) [3.23], 136, 141,311, 315 Starglade Properties Ltd v Roland Nash [2010] EWCA Civ 1314 452, 454 Stealth Construction, Re [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch) 813 Steen v Law [1964] AC 287 540 (p. lv) Stein v Blake (No 2) [1998] BCC 316 (CA) 775 Stena Line v Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 543 122 Stephenson, ex p Brown, Re [1897] 1 QB 638 818 Stimpson v Southern Private Landlords Association [2009] EWHC 2072 (Ch); [2010] BCC 387 [13.09], 650, 653, 655 Stirling v Maitland (1864) 5 B & S 840 289 Stone & Rolls Ltd (In Liquidation) v Moore Stephens (A Firm) [2009] UKHL 39; [2009] 1 AC 1391 (HL) [3.32], [8.05], 157, 161, 163, 164, 165, 173, 174, 175, 463, 467,474, 481 Stonegate Securities Ltd v Gregory [1980] Ch 576 (CA) [16.09], 792 Stothers v William Steward (Holdings) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 266 216 Strahan v Wilcock [2006] EWCA Civ 13; [2006] BCC 320 (CA) 710 Surrey Garden Village Trust Ltd, Re [1995] 1 WLR 974 (Ch) 803 Sussex Brick Co Ltd, Re [1961] Ch 289n; [1960] 1 All ER 772n 761 Swabey v Port Darwin Gold Mining Co (1889) 1 Meg 385 (CA) [6.03], 223, 288 Swaledale Cleaners Ltd, Re [1968] 1 WLR 1710 577 Swift 736 Ltd, Re [1993] BCLC 896 300 T & N Ltd (No. 2), Re [2005] EWHC 2870; [2006] 2 BCLC 374 (Ch) 744 T & N Ltd (No. 3), Re [2006] EWHC 1447; [2007] 1 All ER 851 (Ch) 751 Taff’s Well Ltd, Re Cases of [1992] Ch 179; [1992] BCLC 11 805 Talbot v Cadge [1995] 2 AC 394 (HL) 782 Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 421 (HL) 417, 429, 436, 486 Tate Access Floors Inc v Boswell [1991] Ch 512 53, 68 TCB Ltd v Gray [1986] Ch 621 (Ch), affd on other grounds [1987] Ch 458n (CA) [3.07], 99, 100, 105 Tesco Stores Ltd v Pook [2003] EWHC 823; [2004] IRLR 618 (Ch) 341 Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 (HL) [3.28], 144, 151, 152, 154, 159, 170 Tett v Phoenix Property and Investments Co Ltd [1984] BCLC 599 575 Theakston v London Trust plc [1984] BCLC 389 498 Thermascan Ltd v Norman [2011] BCC 535 (Ch) 404 Theseus Exploration NL v Mining & Associated Industries Ltd [1973] Qd R 81 216, 280 Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons, Re [1897] 1 Ch 406 (CA) [16.10], 791, 795 Thomas Gerrard & Son Ltd, Re [1968] Ch 455 (Ch) 476, 477 Thomas Mortimer Ltd, Re (1925) reported [1965] Ch 186n 621, 622 Tiessen v Henderson [1899] 1 Ch 861 202 Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 (HL) 165 Tobian Properties Ltd, Re [2012] EWCA Civ 998 687, 688, 690 Torvale Group Ltd, Re [1999] 2 BCLC 605 210, 212 Toshoku Finance UK plc, Re (also known as Kahn v IRC) [2002] UKHL 6; [2002] 1 WLR 671 (HL) 787, 820 Tottenham Hotspur plc, Re [1994] 1 BCLC 655 691 Towcester Racecourse Co Ltd v The Racecourse Association Ltd [2003] 1 BCLC 260 322 Towers v Premier Waste Management Ltd [2012] BCC, 72 (CA) [7.24], 369, 444 Transbus International Ltd, Re [2004] EWHC 932; [2004] 2 All ER 911 (Ch) 774 Trebanog Working Men’s Club and Institute Ltd v MacDonald [1940] 1 KB 576 (KBD) [2.15], 62 Trevor v Whitworth (1887) 12 App Cas 409 (HL) [10.05], 67, 512, 520, 521 Trimble v Goldberg [1906] AC 493 (PC) 384 Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 1177 55, 67 Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v Citibank NA [1992] Ch 53 779 Tunstall v Steigmann [1962] 2 QB 593; [1962] 2 All ER 417 (CA) 52, 54 Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2 AC 164 452, 454, 456 Twycross v Grant (1877) 2 CPD 469 481 Tyrrell v Bank of London 10 HL Cas 26 432 Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch) [7.44], 312, 313, 386, 413, 435, 455 Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Ltd [1989] RPC 583 142 Union Corpn Ltd v IRC [1952] 1 All ER 646 (CA), affd on other grounds [1953] AC 482 (HL) 48 Union Music Ltd v Watson [2003] EWCA Civ 180; [2003] 1 BCLC 453 (CA) [4.13], 196, 199, 202 Uniq plc, Re [2011] EWHC 749 (Ch) [15.04], 535, 745 Unisoft Group Ltd (No 3), Re [1994] 1 BCLC 609 683, 689 (p. lvi) Vardy Properties Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKFTT 564 (TC), [2012] SFTD 1398 543 Veba Oil Supply & Trading GmbH v Petrotrade Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1832; [2002] 1 All ER 703 591 Verner v General and Commercial Investment Trust [1894] 2 Ch 239 542 Victor Battery Co Ltd v Curry’s Ltd [1946] Ch 242 536 Vinton v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] STC (SCD) 592 212 Virdi v Abbey Leisure Ltd [1990] BCLC 342 (CA) 697, 800 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2011] EWHC 3017 (Ch) 77 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5 [2.20], 67, 74 Vujnovich v Vujnovich [1990] BCLC 227 799 Vyse v Foster (1872) 9 Ch App 309 416 W & M Roith Ltd, Re [1967] 1 WLR 432 69 Walker v London Tramways Co (1879) 12 Ch D 705 221, 222 Walker v Stones [2000] 4 All ER 412 678 Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373; [1995] 2 WLR 389 (CA) 539, 641, 647, 666, 712 Walters Deed of Guarantee, Re [1933] Ch 321 553 WB Anderson and Sons Ltd v Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 850 137 Weavering Capital (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Peterson [2012] EWHC 1480 (Ch); affd [2013] EWCA Civ 71 359 Welch v Bowmaker (Ireland) Ltd [1980] IR 251 624 Welfab Engineers Ltd, Re (1990) BCLC 833 329, 341 Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 148 (CA) 75, 606 Welton v Saffery [1897] AC 299 247, 248 Wessex Computer Stationers Ltd, Re [1992] BCLC 366 792 West Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodd (1988) 4 BCLC 30 173, 344, 439 Westburn Sugar Refineries Ltd, Ex p [1951] AC 625 (HL) 518 Westburn Sugar Refineries Ltd v IRC [1960] TR 105 542 Westcoast
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3 Lifting the Veil
    3 Lifting the veil SUMMARY Introduction Statutory examples Veil lifting by the courts Classical veil lifting, 1897–1966 The interventionist years, 1966–1989 Back to basics, 1989–present Tortious liability Parent company personal injury tortious liability Commercial tort The costs/bene? ts of limited liability Introduction 3.1 You may not unnaturally wonder at this point what the phrase ‘lifting the veil’ is about. It refers to the situations where the judiciary or the legislature have decided that the separation of the personality of the company and the members is not to be maintained. 7 e veil of incorporation is thus said to be lifted. 7 e judiciary in particular seem to love using unhelpful metaphors to describe this process. In the course of reading cases in this area you will fi nd the process variously described as ‘lifting’, ‘peeping’, ‘penetrating’, ‘piercing’ or ‘parting’ the veil of incorporation. In a nutshell, having spent the whole of the last chapter emphasising the separateness of corporate personality, we now turn to those situations where for various reasons that separateness is not maintained. BBookook 77a.indba.indb 3311 88/14/2008/14/2008 99:08:31:08:31 PPMM 32 | Lifting the veil 3.2 While some of the examples of veil lifting involve straightforward shareholder lim- itation of liability issues many of the examples involve corporate group structures. As businesses became more adept at using the corporate form, group structures began to emerge. For example Z Ltd (the parent or holding company) owns all the issued share capital in three other companies—A Ltd, B Ltd and C Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    University of Huddersfield Repository Mendelsohn, James Still "the unyielding rock"? A critical assessment of the ongoing importance of Salomon V Salomon & Co LTD[1897] AC 22 in the light of selected English company law cases Original Citation Mendelsohn, James (2012) Still "the unyielding rock"? A critical assessment of the ongoing importance of Salomon V Salomon & Co LTD[1897] AC 22 in the light of selected English company law cases. Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/23331/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ STILL ―THE UNYIELDING ROCK?‖ A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ONGOING IMPORTANCE OF SALOMON V SALOMON & CO LTD [1897] AC 22 IN THE LIGHT
    [Show full text]
  • 645KB***Revisiting the Alter Ego Exception in Corporate Veil Piercing
    (2015) 27 SAcLJ Alter Ego Exception in Corporate Veil Piercing 177 REVISITING THE ALTER EGO EXCEPTION IN CORPORATE VEIL PIERCING The seminal decision of the UK Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 (“Prest”) has clarified the law on corporate veil piercing by (a) jettisoning vague phrases such as “justice of the case” and metaphors such as “sham” or “façade” that had hitherto characterised English jurisprudence in this area; and (b) re-categorising earlier English cases under two underlying principles – the concealment principle and the evasion principle. In the aftermath of Prest, the question that ought to be raised in Singapore is whether the local jurisprudence on corporate veil piercing should likewise be re-examined since the earlier Singapore cases have also relied heavily on metaphors and platitudinous phrases; in particular, there is a need to confront the problem of apparently inconsistent judicial statements that seem to categorise the alter ego doctrine as a separate ground for corporate veil piercing. To the extent that this is so, the post-Prest English position and the Singapore position as set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito [2013] 4 SLR 308 (which did not have the opportunity to consider the decision in Prest) appear to be divergent. This article discusses four alternative ways that this perceived inconsistency may be resolved. Moving forward, it is suggested that metaphors such as “sham” or “façade” be eschewed and the principled approach espoused in Prest be adopted instead. YEO Hwee Ying* LLB (Singapore), LLM (London); Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging Corporate Law II May 31St 2013 University of Pennsylvania
    Judging Corporate Law II May 31st 2013 University of Pennsylvania Law School Organized and moderated by John Armour (Oxford) and Edward Rock (Penn Law) 9.00 am Registration and Coffee 9.30 am Welcome PROFESSOR MICHAEL A. FITTS Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School 9.45am Capital Structure I: Legal Capital: What are the constraints on redemption of redeemable shares? How are these constraints imposed, and to what extent may parties modify them by contract? How are questions of valuation of corporate assets approached for the purposes of applicability of these constraints? Barclays Bank plc v British & Commonwealth Holdings plc [1996] 1 BCLC 1 SV Investment Partners LLC v Thoughtworks Inc, (Del. 2011) CHIEF JUSTICE STEELE MR JUSTICE HILDYARD Delaware Supreme Court High Court, Chancery Division 10.45am Capital Structure II: Exchange Offers: What degree of coercion, if any, is it permissible to introduce into an exchange offer to bondholders, in order to overcome hold-out objections? How do/should courts review such offers? Katz v Oak Industries, Inc, 508 A.2d 873 (Del. Ch. 1986) Asseìnagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corp [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch), [2013] 1 All ER 495 MR JUSTICE BRIGGS CHANCELLOR STRINE High Court, Chancery Division Delaware Court of Chancery 11.45pm Coffee 12.00pm Piercing the Corporate Veil: What is understood by “piercing the corporate veil”? Is there a judicial power to do this in appropriate circumstances? If so, what do such circumstances look like? Midland Interiors Inc v Burleigh 2006 WL 3783476 (Del. Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Piercing the Corporate Veil in Finland a Multijurisdictional Study Aimed at Developing the Finnish Piercing Doctrine Acta Electronica Universitatis Lapponiensis 276
    ACTA ELECTRONICA UNIVERSITATIS LAPPONIENSIS 276 KÄRKI KÄRKI Anssi Kärki Piercing the Corporate Veil in Finland A Multijurisdictional Study Aimed at Developing the Finnish Piercing Doctrine Acta electronica Universitatis Lapponiensis 276 ANSSI KÄRKI Piercing the Corporate Veil in Finland – A Multijurisdictional Study Aimed at Developing the Finnish Piercing Doctrine Academic dissertation to be publicly defended with the permission of the Faculty of Law at the University of Lapland in LS2 on 13 March 2020 at 12 noon. Rovaniemi 2020 University of Lapland Faculty of Law Supervised by: Professor emeritus Juha Karhu, University of Lapland Professor Tuula Linna, University of Helsinki Reviewed by: Professor Vesa Annola, University of Vaasa Professor Hanne Søndergaard-Birkmose, Aarhus University Opponent: Professor Vesa Annola, University of Vaasa Copyright: Anssi Kärki Layout: Taittotalo PrintOne Cover: Communications and External Relations, University of Lapland Acta electronica Universitatis Lapponiensis 276 ISBN 978-952-337-193-4 ISSN 1796-6310 URN: http://urn.f/URN:ISBN:978-952-337-193-4 Table of Contents Table of Charts and Figures ...........................................................................................................................................................VIII Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................IX Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................XI
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGMENT Prest (Appellant) V Petrodel Resources Limited and Others
    Trinity Term [2013] UKSC 34 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1395 JUDGMENT Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 June 2013 Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 Appellant Respondent Richard Todd QC Tim Amos QC Daniel Lightman Oliver Wise Stephen Trowell Ben Shaw Amy Kisser (Instructed by Farrer & (Instructed by Jeffrey Co) Green Russell Ltd) LORD SUMPTION Introduction 1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for ancillary relief following a divorce. The principal parties before the judge, Moylan J, were Michael and Yasmin Prest. He was born in Nigeria and she in England. Both have dual Nigerian and British nationality. They were married in 1993, and during the marriage the matrimonial home was in England, although the husband was found by the judge to have been resident in Monaco from about 2001 to date. There was also a second home in Nevis. The wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. A decree nisi was pronounced in December 2008, and a decree absolute in November 2011. 2. The husband is not party to the appeal in point of form, although he is present in spirit. The appeal concerns only the position of a number of companies belonging to the group known as the Petrodel Group which the judge found to be wholly owned and controlled (directly or through intermediate entities) by the husband. There were originally seven companies involved, all of which were joined as additional respondents to the wife’s application for ancillary relief.
    [Show full text]
  • Piercing the Veil of Single Person Corporations
    Going Solo: Piercing the Veil of Single Person Corporations in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines by John Albert B Laylo LLM SHORT THESIS Course: US Corporations and Partnership Law Adviser: Jessica Charles Lawrence, PhD Central European University CEU eTD Collection 1051 Budapest, Nador útca 9 Hungary © Central European University 29 March 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER ONE THE SINGLE PERSON CORPORATION .................................................... 5 1. SINGLE-PERSON CORPORATION UNDER AMERICAN LAW .......................................................... 5 2. SINGLE-MEMBER COMPANY UNDER ENGLISH LAW ................................................................... 6 3. ONE PERSON CORPORATION UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW ................................................................ 8 CHAPTER TWO UNDERSTANDING THE PIERCING THE VEIL DOCTRINE .............. 13 1. PIERCING THE VEIL BY AMERICAN COURTS ............................................................................ 14 1.1. Alter ego doctrine ............................................................................................................. 15 1.2. Instrumentality doctrine ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Huddersfield Repository University of Huddersfield Repository Mendelsohn, James Still "the unyielding rock"? A critical assessment of the ongoing importance of Salomon V Salomon & Co LTD[1897] AC 22 in the light of selected English company law cases Original Citation Mendelsohn, James (2012) Still "the unyielding rock"? A critical assessment of the ongoing importance of Salomon V Salomon & Co LTD[1897] AC 22 in the light of selected English company law cases. Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/23331/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ STILL ―THE
    [Show full text]
  • A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of PIERCING the CORPORATE VEIL in ENGLISH LAW and SOUTH AFRICAN LAW Patson Waliwona Manda 13214633
    A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN ENGLISH LAW AND SOUTH AFRICAN LAW by Patson Waliwona Manda 13214633 Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree LL.M (Corporate Law) In the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria 30 July 2019 Supervisor: Professor Maleka Femida Cassim Table of Contents I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 a) Academic and practical reasons for this study ........................................................................ 3 b) Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 5 c) Research Methodology........................................................................................................... 5 d) Context .................................................................................................................................. 6 e) Chapter Structure ................................................................................................................... 8 f) Research question ................................................................................................................ 10 g) Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 10 II HISTORICAL CONTEXT: SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY, LIMITED LIABILITY AND PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]