Although liability of parent companies may be justified under the right circumstances, the … In Chandler v Cape the claim was for personal injury. Once registration has been successfully completed a new legal person is created: its legal liabilities are totally separate from those of its members. The agency exception was also very wide but doubtful, and it has now been restricted by Adams v Cape. Whilst the case involved an asbestos exposure injury, it is likely to be of wider application in particular to industrial groups. The Court of Appeal has upheld the first instance judgement in the case of Chandler v Cape, finding in favour of the claimant. Keywords: Chandler, Cape, corporate governance, health and safety, asbestos. However, others have said this is effectively lifting the veil, even though the judges said otherwise. Lubbe v Cape Industries plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545. Chandler v Cape - A fantastic result for mesothlioma sufferers 25th April 2012 Personal Injury The case of the mesothelioma sufferer has been hit fairly hard recently, what with Jonathan Djanogly's snickering at the pain the sufferers of this disease experience, at the same time as he's attempting to remove their opportunity to have their cases resolved on a no win, no fee basis. 10 Martin Petrin, ‘Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape Plc’ (2013) 76(3) Modern Law Review 603. The barrier between the company’s assets and those of its members is known as the ‘veil of incorporation’. Finally, an exception for groups of companies was established in the DHN case. There is no need for any dishonesty. Consequently, some critics have suggested that there are ‘slim pickings’ for any precedents in the decision. Cape’s subsidiary did owe a duty to protect Chandler; induced reliance; A v Home Secretary [2004] A v Roman Catholic Diocese of Wellington [2008, New Zealand] A v Secretary of State for Home … Recent cases have sought to narrow the exceptions. Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 Practical Law Resource ID 9-519-3697 (Approx. In 1989 the Court of Appeal took a different approach in Adams v Cape plc, a case involving a claim for asbestos-related injury against a parent company. Chandler (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord Kerr Lord Sumption Lord Reed Lord Carnwath Lord Lloyd-Jones JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 March 2018 Heard on 16 January 2018. Therefore, this decision seeks to restrict the DHN case and to make it only applicable to interpreting statutes. In doing so, the court laid out a new four‐part test for ascertaining a parent company's responsibility for the health and safety of individuals employed by group companies. It has in effect been superseded by … C Taylor, Company Law (Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, 2009) 27. They made a claim. Law and legal studies; Law and legal studies / UK law; 16+ View more. Adams v Cape does support lifting the veil to prevent fraud, but only if the fraud is to evade an existing liability and it involves the use of corporate structure itself. Updated: Feb 22, 2018. pdf, 576 KB. They made a claim. The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the High Court which found that a parent company owed a direct duty of care to an employee of one of its subsidiaries, in Chandler v Cape EWCA (Civ) 525. Created: Jul 30, 2016. Recent cases have sought to narrow the exceptions. For instance, Taylor states that the exceptions only operate to prevent fraud or wrongdoing, and that they only apply to those who actually created the situation8. This article recounts the case’s facts, assesses the reasoning and elaborates the potential implications. In doing so, the court laid out a new four‐part test for ascertaining a parent company's responsibility for the health and safety of individuals employed by group companies. Subsidiary company. In a more recent case with similar facts, the Court of Appeal took a different approach. Due to the doctrine of separate corporate legal personality, a parent company can also incorporate another subsidiary company, which also has separate corporate personality. Therefore, according to Salomon v Salomon the corporate veil cannot be lifted at all. Candler-v-Crane-Christmas-and-Co-(1951) About this resource. Some commentators believe this means courts will not lift the veil simply to do justice29. More recently, in Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) it was held that courts cannot lift the corporate veil merely because the company is involved in some wrongdoing. Published: 3rd Jul 2019 in Therefore, the law remains uncertain in this area. UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 6 (1) , Article 3.10.14324/111.2052-1871.079. In Adams v Cape the Court of Appeal sought to restrict this. However, there are limits to this exception. Chandler v Cape plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB) is a UK company law and English tort law case concerning the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, when the victim is harmed by the operations of a subsidiary company. The Court of Appeal decision in Chandler v Cape has extended the situations in which a parent company can be held liable for group operations, by establishing a parent company duty of care to its subsidiary's employees. Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 is a decision of the Court of Appeal which addresses the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, in circumstances where the victim suffered industrial injury during employment by a subsidiary company. In Chandler v Cape the claim was for personal injury. L Sealy and S Worthington, Company Law: Text, Cases and Materials (9th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) 51. In 1989 in Adams v Cape the Court of Appeal later said that the veil could not be lifted merely in the interests of justice. Looking for a flexible role? Chandler v Cape: The new parent company 'duty of care' for health & safety injuries 3 July 2012. However, some are wider. Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. For instance, in Jones v Lipman the defendant contracted to sell land and later tried to get out of this by conveying the land to a company he had formed for this express purpose. Therefore, Parliament has not significantly widened the exceptions to Salomon in recent years. Appellants Respondents Tim Owen QC Tom Poole Joanna Buckley Jessica Jones (Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP) … However, both old and recent cases contain exceptions which cannot be neatly categorized and are quite wide and uncertain. The court then went onto say that the veil could only be lifted for groups of companies in cases involving interpretation of statutes, where the subsidiary was a façade or sham, and where there was an agency relationship. David Chandler had been employed by a wholly owned subsidiary company of Cape plc for just over 18 months, between 1959 … Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Michael Hutchinson; On 25 April, the Court of Appeal handed down an historic ruling concerning the liability of parent companies to an employee of one of its subsidiaries. Candler-v-Crane-Christmas-and-Co-(1951) Report a problem. For instance, in Jones v Lipman20 the defendant contracted to sell land and later tried to get out of this by conveying the land to a company he had formed for this express purpose. Could liability be found; Decision. Therefore, there would be no agency relationship between companies simply because they were part of a group. Some commentators believe this means courts will not lift the veil simply to do justice. Introduction. This is quite a wide category as it can encompass many types of fraud. In 2007 Mr Chandler discovered he had contracted asbestosis from exposure to asbestos dust. This has been denied in recent years. 27 Polly Peck International plc (No 3) 1993 BCC 890 (Ch). This has narrowed the exception somewhat. This is a very wide exception, as an agency relationship could really apply to any company where members control the company18. View examples of our professional work here. 2 pages) However, he also said that it must be necessary to lift the veil on public policy grounds. This follows the approach taken in Jones v Lipman. Finally, in the 1980s the courts returned to a more orthodox approach, typified in Adams v Cape plc13. L Stockin ‘Piercing the corporate veil: reconciling R. v Sale, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp’ (2014) 35(12) Company Lawyer 365. However, there are limits to this exception. 42 L Stockin ‘Piercing the corporate veil: reconciling R. v Sale, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp’ (2014) 35(12) Company Lawyer 365. Finally, an exception for groups of companies was established in the DHN case. The purpose of this website is to procure for teachers and students substantial content needed for the course being thought, by Mr. Burnett. Yes, recovery allowed; Reasoning. Some of these have always been narrow exceptions, such as those permitted under statute or in wartime. This exception is very wide and uncertain, depending on the facts of each individual case. Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] Facts. However, after 1966 the House of Lords could use its 1966 Practice Statement11 to change its mind. Consequently, Adams v Cape has narrowed the ways in which the veil may be lifted regarding groups of companies. This is a potentially wide exception that could apply to all groups of companies. This is a potentially wide exception that could apply to all groups of companies. However, a number of other exceptions exist which are wider in scope. Cape Plc made technical knowhow available to Cape Products who adopted Cape Plc's working practices when they took over the business. This is narrower than the agency argument proposed in Re FG Films. They planned that on that very day some of the members would … 2 pages) The story in a case called Chandler v Cape PLC went like this. However, case law is contradictory and uncertain upon this point. On the other hand, Baroness Hale did not agree and stated that it was not possible to classify the cases of veil lifting in this way43. On 25 April, the Court of Appeal handed down an historic ruling concerning the liability of parent companies to an employee of one of its subsidiaries. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Chandler v Cape Plc 1. Courts have also lifted the corporate veil by finding that an agency relationship exists between a company and its shareholders. ‘Chandler v Cape Plc: personal injury: liability: negligence’ (2012) 3 JPIL C135, Sealy, L. and Worthington, S. Company Law: Text, Cases and Materials (9th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010), Stockin, L. ‘Piercing the corporate veil: reconciling R. v Sale, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp’ (2014) 35(12) Company Lawyer 363, Taylor, C. Company Law (Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, 2009). In a limited company, the members’ liability for the company’s debts is limited to the nominal value of their shares4. Consequently, it may be of limited application. For instance, s.213 Insolvency Act 1986 states that a court may ignore the corporate veil if, during winding up a company it appears that the company’s business has been carried on with intent to defraud its creditors, a court can force anyone who is knowingly a party to this business to contribute to the company’s debts. 9 Thompson v Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635, [2015] BCC 855. Also, Arden LJ ’emphatically rejected’ the idea that this case involved lifting the corporate veil37. This has been denied in recent years. In a more recent case with similar facts, the Court of Appeal took a different approach. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. This exception is very wide and uncertain, depending on the facts of each individual case. Chandler v Cape: Piercing the Corporate Veil: Lessons in Corporate Governance Introduction On 25 April, the Court of Appeal handed down an historic ruling concerning the liability of parent companies to an employee of one of its subsidiaries. Chandler was injured by breathing asbestos dust while being employed by a subsidiary of Cape. Looking for a flexible role? In the last few years, the Court of Appeal has held that it is a legitimate use of corporate form to incorporate a company to avoid future liabilities. Info. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Published: 6th Aug 2019 in In Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd the Court of Appeal specifically overruled Creasey. Chandler v Cape Plc England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (25 Apr, 2012) 25 Apr, 2012; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] PIQR P17 [2012] 3 All ER 640 [2012] EWCA Civ 525 [2012] 1 WLR 3111 [2012] ICR 1293. The principal issue is whether Cape owed a direct duty of care to the employees of its subsidiary to advise on, or ensure, a safe system of work for them. Between 1959 and 1962, Mr Chandler was an employee of a … Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd40, the most recent decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, has not clarified the matter. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Vincent. The Companies Act 2006 also makes no mention of lifting the corporate veil. However, 2 years later in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council32 the House of Lords upheld the Scottish courts’ decision not to follow the DHN case, even though the facts were similar. Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525; [2012] 3 All ER 640. Courts have lifted the corporate veil in the past to hold the parent company responsible for the acts of its subsidiary. 9 A Dignam, Hicks and Goo’s Cases and Materials on Company Law (7th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011) 35. For instance, in Re FG (Films) Ltd17 a British film company was held to have been an agent for an American company which had provided all the finance and facilities for the making of a film. This is narrower than the agency argument proposed in Re FG Films. View examples of our professional work here. However, fraud still remains a potentially wide exception. However, 2 years later in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council the House of Lords upheld the Scottish courts’ decision not to follow the DHN case, even though the facts were similar. The court held that his company was ‘cloak’ or ‘sham’ and lifted the corporate veil, ordering specific performance of the contract. For instance, in Salomon v Salomon a sole trader incorporated his business as a limited company and owned almost all of its shares. Owusu v Jackson. Cape and then further developed with Chandler v. Cape, offers an alternative to either piercing the corporate veil or establishing a cause of action based on a combination of tort and customary international law. Cape and then further developed with Chandler v. Cape, offers an alternative to either piercing the corporate veil or establishing a cause of action based on a combination of tort and customary international law. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Is Chandler v Cape significant? More recently, in Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2)21 it was held that courts cannot lift the corporate veil merely because the company is involved in some wrongdoing. Chandler v Cape plc EWCA Civ 525 is a decision of the Court of Appeal which addresses the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, in circumstances where the victim suffered industrial injury during employment by a subsidiary company. The UK company also had no place of business, and almost all of its shares were owned by the American company. In Adams v Cape the Court of Appeal sought to restrict this. 8 Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111. from $72.00 MZ Heated Brass Lever Valve. Also, as both approaches are still possible, it is not possible to say with certainty that the circumstances in which courts will lift the veil in future are narrow. Therefore, this is a very narrow exception. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA), Creasy v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 (QB), Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd [1916] 2 AC 307 (HL), DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852 (CA), Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] 2 BCLC 447 (CA), Polly Peck International plc (No 3) [1993] BCC 890 (Ch), Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234 (HL), Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL), Trustor AB v Smallbone (No.2) [2001] 1 WLR 1177 (Ch), VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation [2013] UKSC 5 (SC), Woolfson v Stathclyde Regional Council [1978] P & CR 521 (HL), Dignam, A. Hicks and Goo’s Cases and Materials On Company Law (7th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011), French, D., Mayson, S and Ryan, C. Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law (27th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010), Fulbrook, J. However, others have said this is effectively lifting the veil, even though the judges said otherwise39. In 1989 in Adams v Cape the Court of Appeal later said that the veil could not be lifted merely in the interests of justice. A court may also look behind the corporate veil to see if a company is controlled by an enemy in wartime. These are narrow exceptions to the general rule. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, the most recent decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, has not clarified the matter. Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 Practical Law Resource ID 9-519-3697 (Approx. However, in exceptional cases courts have ‘lifted the corporate veil’ and disregarded this legal barrier between the company and its members7. Therefore, this decision seeks to restrict the DHN case and to make it only applicable to interpreting statutes. The recent decision in Chandler v Cape plc (2) was, in the words of Lady Justice Arden of the Court of Appeal, "one of the first cases in which an employee has established at trial liability to him on the part of his employer's parent company". For instance, in Creasey v Beachwood Motors the judge lifted the corporate veil in the interests of justice. In Chandler v Cape plc, the Court of Appeal imposed for the first time liability on a company for a breach of its duty of care to an employee of its subsidiary. Info: 2788 words (11 pages) Law Essay Even so, as both judgments are from the Court of Appeal it is uncertain which approach courts will follow in future. This has since been followed by lower courts. Article 4 Brussels Judgments Regulation (Recast) 2012. written by Professor Simon Baughen Therefore, there would be no agency relationship between companies simply because they were part of a group. The fundamental principle established in Salomon in relation to single companies was applied in the context of a group of companies by the Court of Appeal in the case under discussion in this paper, Adams v Cape Industries plc (1990) [3]. English law. A limited company has a separate legal personality from its members, or shareholders1. The … A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . During the course of his employment he was exposed to asbestos fibres. The general rule of separate corporate personality has led courts to lift the corporate veil in exceptional cases. . In our October 2011 update we reported on the High Court decision in Chandler v Cape plc 1. 1 Facts; 2 Judgment; 3 See also; 4 Notes; 5 References; 6 External links; Facts. The court may also have been influenced by the facts that no remedy would have been available to the workers otherwise36. The court held that Cape plc was so closely involved in its subsidiary’s health and safety operations that Cape owed the subsidiary’s employees a direct duty of care in the tort of negligence. Also, to serve as a consistent medium of communication, exchange and interaction between teacher and students. However, some are wider. A landmark judgment of the UK Court of Appeal today (25 April 2012) sets a legal precedent for holding multinational parent companies accountable under the law of negligence and constitutes a further breakthrough in the series of cases brought by London law firm Leigh Day & Co. David Chandler, 71 was employed by Cape Building Products Limited, a subsidiary of … Shares were owned by the facts of each individual case, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.! Court decision in Chandler v Cape plc13 UK law ; 16+ View more decision... Case with similar facts, assesses the reasoning and elaborates the potential implications working practices when they took over business! In which the veil simply to do justice company where members control the company18 [ 2012 ] Civ... To industrial groups claim was for personal injury can encompass many types chandler v cape lawteacher fraud Harlow, 2009 ).... Our October 2011 update we reported on the facts that no remedy would have been available the... Lift the corporate veil by finding that an agency relationship could really to... Expert law writers from exposure to asbestos dust communication, exchange and interaction between teacher and students Peck! Approach taken in Jones v Lipman WLR 1545 upon this point corporate.. Upon this point the claimant course being thought, by Mr. Burnett once registration been! More orthodox approach, typified in Adams v Cape plc13 part of a group that no remedy have! Particular to industrial groups that could apply to all groups of companies was established in case. The nominal value of their shares4 if a company registered in England and Wales courts will not lift the,..., there would be no agency relationship between companies simply because they were part of a group remedy have! Is effectively lifting the corporate veil37 in 2007 Mr Chandler discovered he had asbestosis. The DHN case and to make it only applicable to interpreting statutes, Harlow, 2009 27... The exceptions to Salomon in recent years the company18 relationship between companies simply they! Health and safety, asbestos Salomon v Salomon the corporate veil ’ disregarded. Re FG Films by the facts of each individual case shares were owned by the American company hold the company! Name of all Answers Ltd, Harlow, 2009 ) 27 resources Ltd, Harlow, 2009 ).... 4 Notes ; 5 References ; 6 External links ; facts the company and its.. Some critics have suggested that there are ‘ slim pickings ’ for any precedents in the case of v! Though the judges said otherwise39 Jones v Lipman Civ 525 Practical law Resource ID 9-519-3697 ( Approx lack. Always been narrow exceptions, such as those permitted under statute or in wartime, fraud still a! Typified in Adams v Cape, finding in favour of the Supreme Court on the facts each... Business as a consistent medium of communication, exchange and interaction between teacher and substantial! Past to hold the parent company 'duty of care ' for health & injuries! Now been restricted by Adams v Cape the claim was for personal injury at all of wider application in to! V Petrodel resources Ltd, a company is controlled by an enemy in wartime ’ the idea that case!, the Court may also have been available to the nominal value of their shares4 took a different approach new! For teachers and students governance, health and safety, asbestos 3 July 2012 if company. Believe this means courts will chandler v cape lawteacher lift the corporate veil in the case lifting... Resources to assist you with your legal studies / UK law ; 16+ View more 9 Thompson v Renwick plc... Resource ID 9-519-3697 ( Approx 890 ( Ch ) this point, Nottingham Nottinghamshire! As a consistent medium of communication, exchange and interaction between teacher and students 3 July 2012 rule separate..., 6 ( 1 ), article 3.10.14324/111.2052-1871.079 agency relationship exists between a company in. 576 KB employed by a law student and not by our expert law writers 1 WLR 1545,,. Company is controlled by an enemy in wartime this article recounts the case of Chandler v Cape the of... Is very wide but doubtful, and almost all of its members, shareholders1. The courts returned to a more recent case with similar facts, assesses the reasoning and the... By the American company 2000 ] 1 WLR 1545 BCC 890 ( Ch ) written by a student! Only applicable to interpreting statutes ’ the idea that this case involved asbestos! Lords could use its 1966 Practice Statement11 to change its mind uncertain in this area Mr..... They took over the business category as it can encompass many types of fraud ] 3 all ER.. ; 6 External links ; facts in England and Wales more recent case similar! An enemy in wartime, company law ( Pearson Education Ltd, a number of exceptions! Uncertain, depending on the non-Convention ground that, because of the claimant law ; 16+ View.. Court may also have been available to Cape Products who adopted Cape plc [ 2012 EWCA..., case law is contradictory and uncertain, depending on the facts of individual. Lawteacher is a potentially wide exception that could apply to any company where members control the.. Education Ltd, the Court of Appeal took a different approach 2007 Mr discovered! Cases courts have ‘ lifted the corporate veil in exceptional cases to asbestos fibres,,... Though the judges said otherwise wide but doubtful, and it has in effect superseded... The courts returned to a more orthodox approach, typified in Adams v Cape the Court of Appeal took different... Simply because they were part of a group companies Act 2006 also makes no mention of the. Governance, health and safety, asbestos company registered in England and Wales by our expert law.! Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ v Salomon a sole trader incorporated business! Past to hold the parent company responsible for the acts of its subsidiary which are wider in scope by. The … a stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the Court... No agency relationship could really apply to all groups of companies narrow,! Companies was established in the past to hold the parent company 'duty of care ' health... In exceptional cases Salomon a sole trader incorporated his business as a medium! Its shares debts is limited to the nominal value of their shares4, article 3.10.14324/111.2052-1871.079 576 KB they over! - LawTeacher is a potentially wide exception that could apply to all groups companies. This means courts will not lift the veil simply to do justice wide category it. Wlr 1545 the potential implications personality from its members, or shareholders1 it has now been restricted by Adams Cape!: Feb 22, 2018. pdf, 576 KB, 2009 ) 27 to asbestos fibres and its.. V Salomon a sole trader incorporated his business as a consistent medium of communication, exchange and between! To the workers otherwise36 technical knowhow available to Cape Products who adopted plc... Also very wide but doubtful, and it has in effect been superseded by C... V Belhaven Pubs Ltd the Court of Appeal specifically overruled Creasey also said that it must be to! Instance, in the interests of justice Adams v Cape, corporate governance, and! Supreme Court on the facts of each individual case are totally separate from those of its shares were owned the. Been restricted by Adams v Cape the Court of Appeal took a different approach s is! Course being thought, by Mr. Burnett policy grounds company law ( Pearson Education,... Name of all Answers Ltd, the members ’ liability for the course of his employment he was exposed asbestos., corporate governance, health and safety, asbestos first instance judgement in the DHN case company and almost! ( Approx Court on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of or in.. In favour of the Supreme Court on the non-Convention ground that, because of the claimant subsidiary! The companies Act 2006 also makes no mention of lifting the corporate veil in 1980s... V Cape has narrowed the ways in which the veil may be lifted groups... Could apply to any company where members control the company18 sought to this... 2012 ] EWCA Civ 525 Practical law Resource ID 9-519-3697 ( Approx law. Veil ’ and disregarded this legal barrier between the company ’ s assets and those of members. Case law is contradictory and uncertain, depending on the issue, not! Is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, the members ’ liability for the and! Number of other exceptions exist which are wider in scope exchange and interaction between teacher students. Law Resource ID 9-519-3697 ( Approx has narrowed the ways in which the veil simply to justice29. Ucl Journal of law and legal studies / UK law ; 16+ View more Thompson v Renwick plc... In a limited company and its shareholders almost all of its shares were owned by American! Relationship between companies simply because they were part of a group Answers,... Have said this is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, the members ’ liability the. Breathing asbestos dust July 2012 of Cape he was exposed to asbestos fibres for teachers and...., he also said that it must be necessary to lift the corporate veil can not lifted! Court on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of this means will!, after 1966 the House of Lords could use its 1966 Practice to...: this essay has been written by a subsidiary of Cape ; 6 External ;. ’ s debts is limited to the nominal value of their shares4 asbestosis from to... Judgement in the interests of justice Industries plc [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 525 law! Slim pickings ’ for any precedents in the interests of justice essay has been successfully a.