header-logo header-logo

Wronged parties & parental responsibilities

16 June 2017 / Alex Fox , Charlotte Hill
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

When can a wronged party pursue a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary in tort? Alex Fox & Charlotte Hill provide an update

  • It is a well-established principle that a company has its own legal personality that is separate from those of its shareholders, directors, parent and/or subsidiary companies.
  • However, while a company will not be liable for the acts of its subsidiary by reason only of its shareholding, it may owe its own duty of care towards the employees of the subsidiaries.
  • There has been a recent raft of English case law which explores whether a wronged party can pursue a parent company for the actions of its subsidiary in tort.

Since Saloman v Saloman & Co Limited [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 it has been a well-established principle that a company has its own legal personality that is separate from those of its shareholders, directors, parent and/or subsidiary companies. The court is usually unwilling to look beyond that separate personality to hold the shareholders responsible

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll