Preview

Corporation and Partnership Law

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1595 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Corporation and Partnership Law
Assignment
Part 1 – Précis / Short Essay (30% of assignment)
The case Salomon v Salomon & CO. Ltd indicates the ‘Corporate veil’ which refers to distinct the company as a separate legal entity from its shareholders. It can protect the shareholders from not taking liability personally for the company’s debts. However, in some situations the ‘Corporate veil ' could be lifted if the shareholders do not follow the proper procedures. Lifting corporate veil is aim to "see through" the company and let its members take directly liability for the company 's legal position.
The statement points many situations in Corporations Act (“CA”) listed can lift the veil of corporate, which is true. Under s588G the directors will breach the duty by failing prevent the company incurring debts when the company is suspected insolvent. And s588FB is aimed to preventing insolvent companies from disposing of assets prior to liquidation through uncommercial transactions. And also corporate veil can be lifted if company provide the financial assistance in contravention and avoid the taxation legislations. Court may lift the veil based on these sections of CA that fit the actual situations. Generally, in the absence of specific legislation, Australian courts do not to depart from the principle in Slomon 's case and lift the corporate veil. However, these does not means the concept of lifting veil of corporate is no important in Corporation’s law.
However, there may have differences and changes made by common law; the concept of lifting corporate veil is still important and arguable. Under Common Law the courts will lifted the corporate veil generally in four situations: where a company is used for fraud, avoidance of legal obligations, breach of director’s fiduciary duties and attributing mind and will of company. The case of Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne shows that the courts will not allow a company to be used as a device to mask the carrying on of a business by a former



References: Northside DevelopmentsPty Ltd v Registrar- General (1990) 170 CLR 146 Salomon v Salomon & CO Story v Advance Bank Austrlia Ltd (1993) 11 ACLC 629 Sunburst Properties Pty Ltd v Agwater Pty Ltd [2005] SASC 335

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Ian M Ramsay Harold Ford Professor of Commercial Law and Director, Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation The University of Melbourne David B Noakes Solicitor, Allen Allen & Hemsley, Sydney, and Research Associate, Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation The University of Melbourne There is a significant amount of literature by commentators discussing the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. However, there has not been a comprehensive empirical study of the Australian cases relating to this doctrine. In this article, the authors present the results of the first such study. Some of the findings are (i) there has been a substantial increase in the number of piercing cases heard by courts over time; (ii) courts are more prepared to pierce the corporate veil of a proprietary company than a public company; (iii) piercing rates decline as the number of shareholders in companies increases; (iv) courts pierce the corporate veil less frequently when piercing is sought against a parent company than when piercing is sought against one or more individual shareholders; and (v) courts pierce more frequently in a contract context than in a tort context. ____________________________________________________________…

    • 15226 Words
    • 61 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Per The Model Business Corporation Acr, or MBCA, which is followed in thirty two states and is a set of laws that set the standard for the definition of corporations, the most common factors that courts consider in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil are: (1) the existence of fraud; (2) failure to adhere to corporate formalities; (3) inadequate capitalization; and (4) abuse of the corporate entity so as to amount to complete domination. Some corporations may be especially vulnerable to violating the above factors inadvertently, simply because of their size and business practices.…

    • 262 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Salta Company installs a manufacturing machine in its factory at the beginning of the year at a cost of $87,000. The machine’s useful life is estimated to be 5 years, or 400,000 units of product, with a $7,000 salvage value. During its second year, the machine produces 84,500 units of product. Determine the machines’ second year depreciation under the units of production method:…

    • 2171 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Legt 2741 Assignment

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages

    However, the precedent in the Saloman Case is not gospel and the ‘corporate veil’ can be lifted in certain circumstances . If the company is used:…

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Gahsa Rjewrj Wv

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Study-James Hardie

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Piercing the corporate veil describes a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders or directors. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil. A simple example would be where a businessman has left his job as a director and has signed a contract to not compete with the company he has just left for a period of time. If he set up a company which competed with his former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a "sham", a "fraud" or some other phrase,[1] and would still allow the old company to sue the man for breach of contract. A court would look beyond the "legal fiction" to the reality of the situation.…

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order for a court to pierce the corporate veil, two requirements must exist: (1) domination of a corporation by its shareholders; and (2) use of that domination for an improper purpose (defrauding creditors, circumventing a statute, or evading an existing obligation.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Company Law

    • 1138 Words
    • 5 Pages

    References: Tony, C. & Christopher, S. 2009, Corporations Law in Principle, 8th edn, Thompson Reuters, Australia…

    • 1138 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Legal Assignment

    • 1776 Words
    • 8 Pages

    1. The Salomon case establishes that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its participants, namely founders, shareholders, directors, employees and agents. Consequently, a company could enter into contracts in its own rights and possess assets and liabilities distinct from its members. In legal terminology, this rule is referred to as the ‘corporate veil’.…

    • 1776 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The general rule is that shareholders, board of directors, and corporate officers are not liable for the debt of corporation. An exception is allowed, however, when such is to prevent abuse of the privilege of corporate status during which courts sometime pierce the corporate veil to expose shareholders and directors/officers to liability. The factors considered by the courts to determine whether to pierce the corporate veil include; commingling of funds and other assets, unauthorized diversion of corporate funds to use other than the benefit of the corporation and contracting with another with intent to avoid performance by use of a corporate entity as a shield against personal liability.…

    • 400 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Directors Duty

    • 2016 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Hanrahan, P., Ramsay, I. & Stapledon, G. 2011, Commerical Applications of Company Law, 12th ed, CCH Australia Limited, North Ryde, NSW.…

    • 2016 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Salomon V Salomon

    • 534 Words
    • 3 Pages

    However, in certain circumstances, a court may ignore the separate legal entity of a company (lifting the corporate veil) and look at the members of the company and make them liable.…

    • 534 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Lifting the Coporate Veil

    • 4762 Words
    • 20 Pages

    lecture sets outs and discusses those mechanisms in the light of recent authorities and of…

    • 4762 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    partnership questions

    • 17036 Words
    • 69 Pages

    In a liquidating distribution, a partnership need not distribute all of its property to all of its partners.…

    • 17036 Words
    • 69 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    “Courts might pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability on officers, directors, shareholders, or members when all of the following are true.…

    • 1299 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays

Related Topics