The Case Of Tesco Stores Ltd V Brent Lbc On The Law And Its Effects On Corporate World

Further area left unanswered by Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security was highlighted in McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Footbal Club (2005)[16]. This case stated that employer is imposed vicarious liability upon employer for animosity act or criminal act by employees. The case also stated that there must be closely connection within the authority of employees and act by which their employer was considered to be vicariously liable. This case may resolve the entire issues rise in Sprof bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security.

Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 was a very important decision as it traversed the limits of common law and the fuelled the debate on how much power and influence the court has in lifting the corporate veil to support the underhanded claims (due to limited liability) of tort victims. Consequently, it also led to how the assumption of responsibility is determined given the concept of limited liability. This assignment is going to analyse the decision of the case, evaluate the reasoning and its implications, and compare the consequences of a later decision with its precedents. The case, as per the following evaluation, was found to be pushing the borders of common law, creating both positive and negative implications. The case was also found to be contradictory to other important landmark cases, such as Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433.

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” .

Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or the responsibility of any third party that had the ability or duty to control the activities of a violator. Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. Employers will only be liable for the torts of their employees. They will not usually be liable for the torts of their independent contractors. It is therefore necessary to establish the status of the tortfeasor (Law Teacher 2012).

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

This Act protects consumers from misleading descriptions which the business has said about their products and services. It would be a criminal offence if the business trader was to:

Breaches of s180-184 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and Breaches of Common Law and Equitable Principles

The corporation laws in Australia are, by and large, borrowed from the UK Company Law. Its legal structure entails a unitary national statute which is the Corporations Act 2001. This particular statute is under the authority of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). However, all corporation legislations are reported to the Treasurer with references being made to the judgement of the courts as is the case in the United Kingdom.

Lord Toulson mentioned the Judicature Act 1873 in the case of AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors , and what ensued from it. The case deals with the applicable principles of causation in the case of a breach in trust. It held that a “but for” was application in such circumstances for equitable compensation. The case deals with a standard re-mortgage of a residential property. It starts when Mr and Mrs Sondhi applied to AIB group for a loan of £3.3m. Noting that they already had a mortgage with Barclays, their intention was to redeem it using AIB’s loan. Unfortunately, the solicitors at Mark Redler & Co negligently “mistook a redemption figure from Barclays as relating to the whole of their charge” it resulted as the solicitors underpaid Barclays by £309,000. The issue was that Barclays’ charge remained in place and the loan from AIB was secured only by a “second charge over the property” . Once the property was sold, there was a significant shortfall of some £2.5m. Lord Toulson also added in the case “where a trust is part of the machinery for the performance of a contract, that fact will be relevant in considering what loss has been suffered by reason of a breach of the trust.”

This research essay aims to assess the development in laws of corporate manslaughter. Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence in English law, being an act of homicide committed by a company or organization. The section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (hereinafter referred as “CMCHA 2007”) defines the offence. An organization will be liable, if because of the activities conducted by the organization,

HARRIS, Jason. Relief from liability for company directors : recent developments and their implications. [online]. UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY LAW REVIEW; (12) 2008: 152-175. Availability: ISSN: 1446-9294. [cited 22 Aug 15].

Vicarious liability refers to a scenario in which an individual or a given organization is held potentially liable for damages occurred that significantly led to harm (Bell, 2013). In a workplace setting, the organizations may be held responsible for any damage caused by its employees if the actions took placed during the employment.

The so called theory of Alter Ego holds the judicial person liable per se and differs from the previous model as it does not touch upon vicarious liability of natural persons and their culpability; it simply constructs independent criminal liability of corporations, which allows criminal law to preserve its strong core in cases where the provision on the prohibited act has a vague or is leaking the guilt requisite. In difference from vicarious liability, the theory of Alter Ego is broader and deeper as it establishes corporate intent and involves a penalty for corporations that have commenced intentional offences. Moreover, natural persons are considered as organs of the corporate body in the sense that they are the limbs and brains of the

A troubling problem extending from more than a century ago, the question of mistaken identity reconciling with the fraud leading to a "person 's intention.. formed on a false basis" . The case in Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson has proven to be a sticky situation and "one of the most intractable legal problems" for judges and academics alike. There are several issues that ought to be brought forward for discussion, namely the method of contracting, the differentiating between attributes to identity, and the issue on the impact of fraud in a contract. The question to ask is whether the fraudster was a debtor under the agreement, and the short answer would be yes, rendering a contract voidable for fraud. This aligns with the statement by Lord Millet. Nonetheless, a more pertinent question would be whether common law 's take on mistaken identity should be swayed towards the dissenting judges ' arguments? Or should the judges retain the incoherence to remain coherent precedence, allowing for other means of reform to untie (or cut) the Gordian knot in this area of mistaken identity?

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.