Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd
http://www.studymode.com/subjects/souter-v-shyamba-pty-ltd-page1.html
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897)- company is a separate legal entity
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming (1961)
Case Summary:
The facts disclosed that in 1954, Mr. Lee had formed the respondent company carrying on the business of crop spraying from the air. Mr. Lee owned 2,999 of the company’s 3,000 shares. Apart from that, he also was the company’s governing director whereby he had appointed himself as the only pilot of the company at a salary arranged by himself. In March 1956, Mr. Lee was killed while piloting an aircraft during the course of top-soil dressing. The appellant want to claim compensation from the company as the employer of her husband under the New Zealand Workers’ Compensation Act 1922 for the course if her husband's employment. The issue for determination was whether there existed the relationship of employer and employee between the company and Mr. Lee. The court held in favour of appellant and she was entitled to compensation. Following the grounds of the decision in Salomon’s case, Mr. Lee was employed by the company in the sense required by the Act 1922.Court held that Lee was a separate person from the company he formed, and compensation was due to the widow. Thus, the rule of corporate personality enabled Lee to be the master and servant at the same time.
Lee formed the company, Lee’s Air Farming Ltd. He owned all the shares except one. He was the company’s sole governing director. He was also employed by the company as its chief and only pilot.
Lee was killed while flying for the company. His wife made a claim for workmen’s compensation under the New Zealand workmen’s compensation legislation. Her entitlement to such compensation depended on whether or not Lee was a worker ie. a person who has entered into a contract of service with an employer.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal refused to hold that Lee was a worker, holding that a man could not in effect, employ himself.
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897)- company is a separate legal entity
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming (1961)
Case Summary:
The facts disclosed that in 1954, Mr. Lee had formed the respondent company carrying on the business of crop spraying from the air. Mr. Lee owned 2,999 of the company’s 3,000 shares. Apart from that, he also was the company’s governing director whereby he had appointed himself as the only pilot of the company at a salary arranged by himself. In March 1956, Mr. Lee was killed while piloting an aircraft during the course of top-soil dressing. The appellant want to claim compensation from the company as the employer of her husband under the New Zealand Workers’ Compensation Act 1922 for the course if her husband's employment. The issue for determination was whether there existed the relationship of employer and employee between the company and Mr. Lee. The court held in favour of appellant and she was entitled to compensation. Following the grounds of the decision in Salomon’s case, Mr. Lee was employed by the company in the sense required by the Act 1922.Court held that Lee was a separate person from the company he formed, and compensation was due to the widow. Thus, the rule of corporate personality enabled Lee to be the master and servant at the same time.
Lee formed the company, Lee’s Air Farming Ltd. He owned all the shares except one. He was the company’s sole governing director. He was also employed by the company as its chief and only pilot.
Lee was killed while flying for the company. His wife made a claim for workmen’s compensation under the New Zealand workmen’s compensation legislation. Her entitlement to such compensation depended on whether or not Lee was a worker ie. a person who has entered into a contract of service with an employer.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal refused to hold that Lee was a worker, holding that a man could not in effect, employ himself.