What Law Is The Corporations Act 2001 ( Cth )

Corporations Law can be described as the interaction between directors, employees, financier, consumers and the community. Corporations law can be implied to this case as Water Corporations, a government owned company had a responsibility upon entering into a contract with Norvik Industries to provide an attention to skill when connecting the water line. To provide fully trained employees to undertake this job. This involved double checking there work.

21.Boutique Corporation would like to change its corporate status to avoid income taxes at the corporate level. To

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” .

2 This is an OPEN book examination. You can only use your prescribed text book and the Corporations Act 2001. No other materials are allowed.

Learning Objective 1.2 ~ discuss the different types of companies which may be formed under the Corporations Act 2001

The Corporate personhood, a universal legal model, grants corporations genuine rights and responsibilities similar to those of individual citizens. This concept proved useful in American jurisprudence in that it simplified one’s interactions with huge conglomerates. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution, the term corporate personhood served to consider corporations similar to individuals. In that vane, corporate entities like individuals could join contracts as a single unit, corporate entities like individuals could be named in civil lawsuits as a single group and corporate entities like individuals could make decisions that would hold the enterprise responsible as a single entity even though the decisions were

The Myer Holding Limited is wholly owned all of the Australian controlled subsidiaries. Within the whole owned subsidiaries, for those entities that along to a deed of cross guarantee or called as ‘closed group’ have to follow the Class Order 98/1418 issued by ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission), which requiring to prepare financial statements and director

According to S129, a company be legally bound by a contract depending on the authority granted to an agent or officer under the common law of statutory provisions. A contract can be directly executed under the common law provision s127(1) which states that a contract is executed when signed by two directors or a director and a company secretary. Ickea can rely on the statutory assumptions under s129(3), which proposes that James was duly appointed and had appropriate form of customarily authority, s129(5) where the contract was appropriately signed per stated in s127(1) and s129(7) where the officer/agent was given the authority to license the documents.

The Commonwealth has primarily relied on s 51(xxxv) of the Constitution for its industrial relations laws. However, the they wanted to expand their legislative power by relying on s51(xx), the corporations power, to circumvent the limitations of s51(xxxv).

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.

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.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has long been a touchy issue for governments not just in Australia, but around the world as well. Companies in Australia are governed by the corporation’s act, which outlines the legal capacity and power of a company. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 57A1, defines a corporation as a separate legal entity, that includes any corporate body and unincorporated bodies that may sue, be sued or hold property in the name of an office holder appointed for that purpose. In context of corporate governance, the main issue is with the current legislation is in regards to director’s duties. Under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s1802, directors have a civil obligation to act with due care and

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

In recent times, there has been an increased incidence among large scale business organizations to structure their operations through the form of corporate groups, with many domestic and international subsidiaries, wholly owned or otherwise, with the corporate veil ensuring that each of these enjoy separate corporate legal personality and limited liability. The existence of these ‘corporate groups’, with subsidiary companies being heavily controlled by their parent companies, have necessitated interpretations and applications of existing corporate legal principles to this novel context, even in case of the basic tenets of corporate law. The circumstances associated with corporate veil piercing, through detailed

This act modified the methods for many different subjects, such as financial and non-financial reporting, company communications with shareholders, and the responsibilities of company heads. The main role of the Act is to get managers to act in the best interests of shareholders. It additionally requires managers to think about the long-term effects of decisions; the welfares of the business’s staff; the business’s connections alongside suppliers, clients, and others; and the impression of the company’s procedures on the surrounding area. The Company Law Review Group was established by the government in 1998 in order to contemplate ways to modernize company law. The Company Law Review guidelines were the starting point for the modifications suggested by the Company Law Reform White Paper released in 2005. Then the White Paper proposals turned into an outline for a Bill, which then finally received official approval and passed in 2006, (companieshouse.gov.uk, 2014).