Corporations Law: Legal Basis, Solomon Case, and Future Amendments

This article discusses the legal basis of a corporate entity, the Solomon case, and the future of corporation law. It explains the concept of separate legal entity and how it protects shareholders from personal liability. The article also highlights the need for amendments in current law to make the concept of separate legal entity stronger.

Running head: Corporations Law
Corporations Law

Corporations Law
1
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Soloman v. A Soloman And Co. Ltd..........................................................................................2
Legal Basis of a Corporate Entity..............................................................................................3
Future of Corporation Law.........................................................................................................4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................4
References..................................................................................................................................6

Corporations Law
2
Introduction
A corporation is a separate legal entity by law. It has a separate identity from its owners who
are called stockholders. It does not mean the corporation has the voting right but he is liable
to pay taxes. The partnership firm differentiated with the company. The company provides a
“veil” that protects its shareholders from personal liability whereas partnership firm does not
provide a “veil” (Bottomley, Hall and Spender, 2018). The corporation is very different to
deal in legal terms. In partnership firm, it will only affect the capital of him and his partner. If
the Sole proprietor is making any decision, he is only risking his capital. Whereas in
corporation, the managers of the corporation making any decision they are risking the capital
of others, the shareholders capital they are risking. In a case of Solomon V A Solomon and
Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22, it is had been described that the company role and the role of the
owner in the company. The future of separate legal entity necessary that it requires that
whether any amendment in current law. It will require by taking more cases of Corporation
law that why it is necessary to amend these changes.
Solomon v. A Solomon And Co. Ltd.
Aaron Solomon case has been considered the major case for the rule of Separate legal entity.
Judge, Vaughan Williams J. in the ruling said that Mr Solomon created the company with the
only purpose to transfer the company. The judge considered that Company was agent and the
Solomon was principle. Mr Solomon also appealed against this order but that appeal is also
ruled against him. It was ruled by the court that Mr Solomon had misused the privileges of
incorporation that was conferred for bona fide shareholders. He incorporated the company
was just a scheme and described the company is just a fiction and a myth. However, the
House of Lords overturned this decision said that Mr Solomon had made the company with
all requirement and rejected the arguments of the agent-principal and the fraud. He held that
only seven members are required to hold at least one shares according to the Companies Act,
1862. The company is a separate person created by law and considered as a legal person that
had a different identity from its shareholders. The company was principal and Solomon was
his agent, hence the business does not belong to the Solomon but it belongs to the Company.
Even though the business will remain same after the incorporation and his managers and they
only receiving the profits but after the incorporation the “veil” had provided to its

Corporations Law
3
shareholders which protects the shareholders from the liability but only to an extent that is
provided by the law.
After this case, the law of separate legal entity has been established all over the world. Before
this case where the Australian courts considered the company and its owners are same, but
due to this case, the concept of separate legal entity had evolved. The company has its role, it
legally liable for any wrong act and considered as a separate legal person. Limited liability
advantage is that trading through the medium will only liable toward payment of its debts to a
limited extent. The company if limited by shares than the shareholder can sell their shares on
the nominal price.
Legal Basis of a Corporate Entity
A corporation is a separate legal entity; it has a separate identity from its owners. It is
incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001. The Corporation Act, 2001, governs
company’s activities that administered by the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission (ASIC, 2018). The board of directors are its mangers and its officers operate it.
In Lord Summer in Gas lighting Improvement Co Ltd V Inland Revenue Commissioners
(1923) AC 723 it was ruled that the company is a separate legal entity. The court had justified
that why the company have a separate legal entity. The shareholders liability is decreased, as
they do not have to manage the company, the managers of the company are expertise to
operate the company. The managers invest the money in the market on the gain and loss the
shareholders had been paid incentives. The shareholders of the company can sell their shares
at discounted rates if the managers failed to operate the company. Any debt raised by the
company, the company is only liable for that debt. Shareholders will not be liable for any
debt raised by the company. It can be concluded that the company organisation structure as
compared to partnership firm and sole proprietor is very different. In company, the one who
invest the capital is not necessary that he will manage the company. The board of directors
and the leadership team are the one who manages the company. The shareholders are the one
who invest in the company. Therefore, the company and shareholders cannot be treated that
they both are same but they are distinguished personalities.

Corporations Law
4
Future of Corporation Law
The future of corporation law as detailed in the legal principle of Solomon case. Solomon
case shows that the incorporation of the company with all compliances as said by the act
(TIA, 2018). In another case that was related to Solomon case Lee v Lee’s Air farming Ltd
(1961) UKPC 33, AC 12, Mr Lee had a crop laying business, formed his business into a
limited company. Due to a flying accident Mr Lee was died and his wife asked the
compensation from the state. His wife argued that he is a worker under the law but state
argued that he is the owner of the company and will treated as self-employed. The court ruled
that the company is a separate legal entity and Mr Lee can be the employee of the company.
This ruled which separate company from its owner that goes against the plaintiff in this case.
It can be said that Solomon hundred year old case from which the modern business has
emerged. This law provides the protection to shareholders private assets. This law helped to
facilitate the business and international trade. It is required to some advancement, in the case
that this law cannot be challenged.
In a few other cases where the court has treated company and the one who own that company
is the same person. In Peate v federal Commissioner of taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443 in this
the courts had acknowledged that the company is pierced that deny shareholders the
protection that veil provides. However, the rule is same which is observed by the Supreme
Court also that the corporation and the owners are different. The company has its own legal
identity, but in few exceptional cases, it becomes necessary to remove the Veil to check the
reality of the corporation. From this, it can be concluded that the future of Solomon case that
says company is a separate legal entity cannot be functioned in future, because from the
above cases it can be observed that this rule does not function in every case and due to that, it
can say that changes are required in the current law. The Government is required to make
amendments in the company law. There is required to implement strict laws to make the
concept of separate legal entity stronger. There are heavy fine must be opposed who misused
this law for any fraud motive (Tomasic, and Bottomley, 2002).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can say that the corporation is a separate entity from its owners. It provides a
veil to its shareholders that protect his from any personal liability. The corporation is very
different from partnership firm and Sole Proprietor as in this both liability of the owners and

Corporations Law
5
the organisation are the same but not in the case of Company. In Solomon V A Solomon and
Co. Ltd. [1897], in the case the company has, a separate identity is ruled by the court. The
company has followed all the compliances that every shareholder has a share that is required
by the act. It is not the case of fraud as said by the court and in this, it is stated that the
company is the principal and the Solomon is the agent of the company. In contradictory to
this case, some of the cases where the company and the owner regarded as the same and the
corporate veil can be pierced in some cases. Therefore, it concluded that in current law it is
required to amend some of the changes in the Act

Corporations Law
6
References
Australian Securities & Investment Commission. (2018) Your business Structure. [Online]
ASIC. Available from: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/your-business-structure
[Accessed 8/08/18]
Bottomley, S., Hall, K., and Spender, P. (2018) Contemporary Australian Corporate Law.
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
LawTeacher. (2013) The Principle of Salomon. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/business-law/the-principle-of-salomon-business-
law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 11 August 2018].
Lex Vidhi. (2018) Case Study on a Separate Legal Entity of a Company. [Online] Lex Vidhi.
Available from: http://www.lexvidhi.com/article-details/case-study-on-separate-legal-entity-
of-a-company-129.html [Accessed 7/08/2018]
TIA. (2018) Legal Bussiness Structure. [Online] TIA. Available from:
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Legal-Business-Structures.pdf [Accessed 9/08/18]
Tomasic, R., and Bottomley, S. (2002) Corporations Law in Australia. Sydney: The
Federation Press.