header-logo header-logo

The corporate veil

17 October 2009 / Victoria Von Wachter
Issue: 7281 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Victoria von Wachter explores how far courts will go to avoid lifting the corporate veil

Since the 19th century ruling in Salomon v Salomon [1874] AC 22 which stated companies were legal entities and a court had no business peering beneath the veil of incorporation to see what was happening there, the rule has been revisited and reinforced over the decades in cases such as Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 443, [1991] 1 All ER 929 and in the more recent past. However, the sanctity of the legal integrity and identity of companies has been protected with vigour by the courts which have a strong disinclination for anyone, let alone them, peering under the skirts of a company to examine its linen (dirty or otherwise). In Adams the Court of Appeal expressly declined to “pierce the veil of incorporation” even when it was alleged that the corporate structures with respect to a subsidiary had been created purely to place liability most advantageously for the parent company.

In Allen v Amalgamated Construction

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll