This video on Salomon v Salomon is by student Marija Labanauskaite. The case established that companies are legal persons separate and distinct from their shareholders.
Very excellent explanation of the judgment. It is highly regretted that Hon'ble House of Lords could not understand forthcoming misuse of this judgment. In India more than 1 lakh companies have looted thousand lakhs of rupees of poor investors. The Company directors misuse all the funds provided to them by the investors i.e. share holders. In developing countries it can not be expected that every investor is well conversant with Articles of Association and Memorandum. It requires review of this judgment.
Calamitous decision because a company can commit a criminal offence and culprits can hide behind it as it is a separate legal entity. there are more reasons too :)
+Sankalp Agarwal In furtherance to the idea of Aniisah Dusta, the courts can circumvent the separate legal personality principle in exceptional circumstances, albeit at their discretion, if a case is tainted with illegality, fraud, façade, tax evasion as in Blita v Nazir & others or a situation where an individual tries to use a company to avoid an existing obligation as was the case in Jones v. Lipman (a 'sham'). In this case, the court will set aside the contract and demand for specific performance thereby piercing the corporate veil. The decision in Prest v. Petrodel fosters the idea that, under English law, a corporate body is distinct from and has separate legal personality to, its shareholders and that distinction (corporate veil) can only be set aside in extremely limited circumstances as mentioned above. Though, the courts are also willing to use tortious claims in negligence to pierce the corporate veil indirectly making a parent company liable for the action of its subsidiary company as was the situation in Chandler v Cape Plc. That said, the courts rather than deal with each case on the facts of its merit tries to limit the impact of piercing the corporate veil because the bar has arguably been set even higher due to well developed and established principles of company and insolvency law, both essential for protecting those dealing with companies.
@@aniisahdusta9136 In GB, proceedings for corporate manslaughter have consistently failed due to an inability to discover a guiding mind www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/zeebrugge-ferry-disaster-ms-herald-of-free-enterprise-uk-30-years-on-maritime-tragedy-killed-a7583131.html
@@MEHBOOBZARGAR The director of a company that supplied a 2-tonne door to G Live in Guildford which fell killing 2 members of a Cornish shanty band was found not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. "His company, however, was found guilty of a charge of breaching general duty regarding articles and substances for use at work." www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/g-live-fishermans-friends-deaths-12122225
