Case Analysis : Salomon V Salomon Ltd

“The decision in Salomon v Salomon was an outrage as it seemed to encourage a sense of Irresponsibility in the business community”.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

The principle of the separate legal entity was established in the case of Salomon v A Salomon &Co Ltd. it is difficult to pierce the separate legal entity of the company as the House of Lords approach Companies Act in Salomon. However, it was the job of the courts to deviate from the legal fiction in the absence of any statutory regulations. Therefore, a good understanding of separate corporate personality is essential to understanding what company law is about.

Lipton, P. & Herzberg, A. (2010). Understanding Company Law. (15th ed.). Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.

Because it is a separate person, it has its own legal identity or personality, which means that it can, for example, hold property in its own name and enter into contracts in its own name. It can also commence or defend legal proceedings in its own name. Importantly, its liabilities are its own and not those of its members or officers.

This made the corporation a separate legal person acting in its own rights under the law, this

Rule of Law: As provided in the corporate law, corporations are legal entities that are liable for their own liabilities, and hence shareholders cannot be personally held liable for any liability in the corporation. Whether a corporation de jure or corporation de facto, individual shareholders may not take the identity of an organization per se; and hence this limits the liabilities of individual shareholders against creditors of the

Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.

For the purposes of this assignment the relevant law is the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (either as the “Act” of the “CA”). From now on I will refer to it as the Act (Hinchy, McDermott 2008).

The Doctrine of Separate Personality has been an important aspect in the Company Law for a long time. It had been discussed heavily in the Salomon v Salomon & CO (1987) which was the leading case for this matter (Dine and Koutsias, 2009, p.17). In fact, it may be the most well-known case in the company law. Company law is simply any laws that related to organizations and businesses in the UK. However, the one that established the doctrine of separate personality is not from Salomon case, it simply permitted its application to one-man and private companies (Kelly, Hammer and Hendy, p.356). Under the separate personality is said to be a ‘veil’ that separated between the owners and the business. This veil can actually be pierced whether under a companies legislation or common law. Thus, in this essay there will be discussions about the matter of separate personality and lifting the veil of incorporation with reference of the leading case Salomon v Salomon & CO and other cases that are related.

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a

The decision of Salomon v. Salomon which brought about the doctrine of separate legal personality is one which has evolved over time. Over a century and still counting, the principle illustrated in Salomon, courts have are still reluctant in placing limitations on corporate personality and rejecting other approaches which pose as a greater challenge to the doctrine . From time immemorial, judicial history, lawyers and judges have reiterated that the doctrine of corporation is an intangible legal entity, without the body and soul. In Athanasian terms, the orthodox doctrine of corporation as a legal person, separate and distinct from the personality of the members who compose it, has been defined and propagated .

Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.

Counter-party in corporate transactions (serve as a single contracting party that is distinct from the various individuals who own pr mange the firm);