Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd: Corporate Veil

This assignment analyzes the historical and influential case of *Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd*, which established the principle of separate legal personality for corporations. It delves into the concept of the 'corporate veil' and examines when courts may lift this veil to hold shareholders personally liable for corporate debts. The assignment discusses relevant case law, including exceptions to the rule of separate legal entity, and analyzes the implications of *Salomon* on modern company legislation.

Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Business and Corporation Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

2BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Fact of the case................................................................................................................................3
The issue..........................................................................................................................................4
Applied rules....................................................................................................................................4
Application of corporations Act......................................................................................................6
Legal consequences.........................................................................................................................6
Piercing of the corporate veil...........................................................................................................8
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
Reference.......................................................................................................................................11

3BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Introduction
The separate legal personality is one of the basic terms of tenet where Company Law has
been premised it helps the fundamental laws to establishes every legislation where a company
owns the existence and functions. According to the study the rule of corporate jurisprudence in
the case of Salomon V A Salomon And Co Ltd [1897] the court has establishes the principles
of separate legal personality which has covered the universal commercial law of regime. The
doctrine of separate legal entity has been analyzed in this case which has formed according to the
company law and corporate theory.
The corporate theory has made several certain principles which are difficult to define due
to the unsuitable for strict and permanent delineation for the formation of this law (Lim, 2014).
Fact of the case
The fact of the case is Solomon who transferred his business of boat making where he
runs the business as a sole proprietorship with the company of Solomon Limited which also
incorporated property to the members who are himself along with his family. Salomon has
transferred the business through the way of shares debentures which included floating charges
which define the security against debts for the Assets of the company. However after sometime
the business has been failed to corporate it and went into liquidation. Therefore Salomon’s rights
for the recovery of floating charges has been claimed against the debentures which are unsecured
creditors but it there was no recovered of such depths from the liquidation process (Waqas &
Rehman, 2016).

4BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Later in the elevation of unjust exclusion the liquidator who has appointed on the behalf
of unsecured creditors make the charges of allegation where Solomon was found level for the
dates for being the principal in this liquidation process. In which case it was also found the
liquidator has overlooked the separate personality of the company Solomon Limited where
Solomon itself the member of the company therefore it makes Solomon personally liable for
such debt of the company and for being a sole trader of the business it also make the burden for
him (Watson, 2015).
The issue
As per the case fact the issue has been arrival regarding the claims of the unsecured
creditors in the liquidation process of the company Solomon Limited where Solomon itself holds
the major part of shares and charged for the liability of the company’s Debt. Therefore the
separate legal in identity of the company weather make liable for the debts where the shareholder
holds the rights of sole trader and above the capital contribution the unlimited personal liability
of being a member towards the company also holds any duties for payment of the debts of the
company (Waqas & Rehman, 2016).
Applied rules
The court of appeals has declared in the case of Solomon vs. Solomon and Co Limited
that as Solomon was incorporated in the company contrary according to the true intent as per the
Companies Act 1862 and the letter it was found to conduct it with the business as an agent of
Solomon therefore he should be responsible for the Dept in curd for running the business which
is also recognize as agency. The house of Lord according to the appeal over the ruling and
anonymously held of the case proceeding where the company was found Incorporated and

5BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
independent person with its rights and the liabilities which applied to him were the motives of
the promotion of the company was completely found equivalent in describing the actual rights
and liabilities therefore the corporate veil has been applied in this case between the company and
its owners (Lim, 2014).
According to the separate legal personality which has been commenced in Solomon case
has make some president relevant decisions has been taken from the cases of Macaura v
Northern Assurance Co. 1925, Lee v Lee's Air Farming Limited and Farrar v Farrars Ltd.,
(1888) (Watson, 2015).
In the case of Murray A. Pickering, 'The Company as a Separate Legal Entity'
(1968) it has been found that the corporate veil which has been established fair the legal
personality separate and independent of a company is help to find the identify of their
shareholders. therefore if any rights and obligations or liabilities has applicable for the company
therefore the shareholders are also responsible for such capital contribution which is also
recognized as limited liability the corporate fiction has been described according to the
individuals to pursue the purpose of economic situation of the company where it will never be
applicable out the risk or liabilities of the capacity of someone who is related to the company
therefore when a company has their own property executive contracts raise debts make
investments and run their business as per their rights and obligations it is completely present
independent towards their members therefore companies has the right to sue and be sued on its
own identity which should be applicable as per the facilities of legal courses most important the
terms and conditions of separate real identity only applicable when a company survives on the
date of its members (Waqas & Rehman, 2016).

6BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Application of corporations Act
According to the corporate act 2001 has legislated in the Section 124(1) where it describe
that a company should have the legal capacity and on powers of an individual both in and outside
of their jurisdiction which despite that the legal entity in business is completely separate from
another business or any individual who wrote the of the value to accountability the corporation
or a limited liability is also represent the example of a separate legal body because when
Corporation found to tend to make the separation as per the action of the entity from such
individual or any other company. Therefore a company owns the powers of controlling and
corporate the whole business where they can issue and cancel shares of the company they also
have right to make decision over the and issued shares of the company it also provides the
powers to distribute any of the companies property towards the member of that company where
it provide security by charging cancelled capital. The Section 124 one also described that a
company should be registered or recognized as a corporation under the jurisdiction and also
included the outside of the jurisdiction (Lim, 2014). According to the study the rule of corporate
jurisprudence in the case of Salomon V A Salomon And Co Ltd [1897] the court has
establishes the principles of separate legal personality which has covered the universal
commercial law of regime. The doctrine of separate legal entity has been analyzed in this case
which has formed according to the company law and corporate theory.
Legal consequences
In the Solomon’s case case several legal consequences of separate legal entity has been
found according to the company law when a company is formed and incorporated therefore they
are bound to follow of the application of the separate identity principle though such legal
consequences make distinction between private and company debts. It also make the distinction

7BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
between legal entity of private and company assets where company is liable to contract with their
members which includes employees, directors and other members who are related to the
company (Waqas & Rehman, 2016).
When debts are being taken under the company’s name therefore it should be belongs to
the company as well as maybe not the directly related with the shareholders or director or any
other else. Therefore house of Lord has made a decision in this case where they mentioned that
the debts and liabilities should be make the legal right to the company through the separate legal
person but there should be some circumstances and in modern law it to have as modified by the
statute law. According to the Corporation Act 2001 the section 588G and section 197 has
defined the directors of a Trustee company or the directors itself reliable as per the circumstances
of public policy where the corporate gifts should in card during the trading (Watson, 2015).
According to the case facts the assets which have been purchased on the name of
company and the accounts from the company therefore it should be belong to the company.
Those are never directly owned by the directors or any shareholders or any other member of the
company though if any shares have been owned of 100% of the company. Therefore it will still
belong to the company not to other persons all the members from the company. This only
happened due to the separate legal entity. The company has right to owned the property in its
own which has been mentioned in Section 124 of Corporation Act. Therefore it also described
that company is legally owned with ownership rights which belongs to the property. These
circumstances has been in one of the famous case Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd
(1925) where the court has found that the company has completely holds the property separately
from the property of the members of the same company (Waqas & Rehman, 2016).

8BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
When company get there separate legal entity therefore they have all the rights to make
or enter into any contractual relation with the shareholders the directors and others member who
are related in the companies controlling member. This circumstance has been found to by the
House of Lords in one of the famous case of Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1961). In this case
the court has proved the circumstances where the company has right to make a relationship or
enter in an employment contract with Mr. Lee Lord Morrison who holds a major shareholder
position in this company (Lim, 2014).
Therefore it is important to discuss that and employer of a company who owns the
position of separate legal entity holds various obligations where one is important to provide a
safe system of work where it may never enter with any matter of the injured employees which
could be a director of the controller of the company. The high court of Australia has been made a
historical legislative decision in the Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) where it
has been illustrated that when the terms of introduction has arises between the legal principles in
the Corporate law and the employer’s duty of care therefore under the employment law it is
important for the company to provide a proper safe system of work for those employees and
other members of the company (Watson, 2015).
Piercing of the corporate veil
In the Solomon’s case the English Court has found several situations which were
permissible to disregard with the principles to Pierce the corporate veil which described by
completely separate entity principles which found unfair. Therefore in such situation the court
has right to make decisions which create quantity as per the principles on several grounds.
Sometimes it has been found that the court do such act for reach the actual person who holds the

9BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
duty of legal separate entity behind the veil and to find the actual true nature of the company.
The court has right to described the corporate veil or lift the veil in the area of law has been ill-
defined, inconsistent and quiet unpredictable according to the law of Corporation. In the case of
Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd the High Court has pointed out the consequences of
common and unifying principles as per the decision of the court where it is necessary to lift or
ignore the corporate veil due to the ill-defined, inconsistent and quiet unpredictable situation
(Lim, 2014).
Therefore it is necessary to determine the situation when the discrete of the separate
entity principles or commentators has found to be divided from their instances into several
categories and it should not have any concerts as per the type of categories and the similar cases
which should be placed in the terms of corporate veil. It is also stated that the ultimate policy for
lifting the veil should depend and applicable as per the policy regarding the justice which has
been given by the court. It actually provide legal decision for define or give proper rights or
duties to a company where they hold several obligations and liabilities towards their shareholders
and it should be formed and applicable for the separate legal person who is solely completely
responsible for such debts which in cards for the sole beneficiary of the credit by their own
(Waqas & Rehman, 2016).
Conclusion
Therefore as per the decision in the Solomon’s case the separate legal personality of the
corporation has been defined through the Companies Act but it is also described in the modern
company legislations of Corporation Act where the separate legal personality towards the
company which allowed the shareholders for carrying on trading with minimal exposes which

10BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
are related to the risk of personal insolvency from the event of the collapse. In addition the
exceptions of such principles of separate legal entity has also justified by the court where is this
regards and make ruling contrary as per the principles of the company Act the court has also
justified on the terms of leave the corporate veil where several views has been found and the
principles which are followed in the court however the article 16 of the Companies Act 1997
has define such principles which has been followed in the company while processing the
Solomon’s case in the court. Though it has become one of the most historical Landmark
company case law in the UK and most of the time it is cited on the area of company law (Waqas
& Rehman, 2016).

11BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
Reference
Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 206 ALR 387; (2004) HCA 28
Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549
Farrar v Farrars Ltd., (1888) 40 ChD 395
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1961) AC12
Lee v Lee's Air Farming Limited 1961 AC 12
Lim, E. (2014). Of ‘Landmark’or ‘Leading’Cases: Salomon's Challenge. Journal of Law and
Society, 41(4), 523-550.
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd (1925) AC 619
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. 1925 AC 619
Murray A. Pickering, 'The Company as a Separate Legal Entity' (1968) 31 Mod. L. Rev. 481
Salomon V A Salomon And Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
Waqas, M., & Rehman, Z. (2016). Separate Legal Entity of Corporation: The Corporate Veil.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 3(1), 1-4.
Watson, S. (2015). Can Shareholders of a Company Override a Management Decision Made by
the Board?: Attorney-General v Ririnui. Browser Download This Paper.

12BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW