• company law
    Table of Content Title Page Case Reference 3 Question 1 4-6 Question 2 7-8 Question 3 9-10 Reference 11 Case Reference 1) Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd 2) Symington v. Symington’s Quarries Ltd 3) Daimler Co Ltd. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. 4) Gilford Motor Co v. Horne 5...
    Premium 2240 Words 9 Pages
  • Company Law in Malaysia - Separate Legal Entity
    fact that it was the Germans who were operating the business. D was therefore successful in its defence. ii. In order to prevent a fraud from being committed In Gilford Motors v Horne [1933], Horne was at one time the Managing Director of Gilford Motors. One of the terms of his employment...
    Premium 5368 Words 22 Pages
  • Business Law
    than 50 (c) cannot invite public to buy shares (d) prohibits the public companies to deposit with private company The private companies always end with the words “Sdn Bhd” 7. (a) Judicial Exceptions i. company used to evade legal obligations or to commit fraud Case: Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne...
    Premium 916 Words 4 Pages
  • Business Law
    restrictions on the authority of the company, including members, staff and officers. In the Gilford Motor Ltd. vs. Horne (1933), the Australian court decided to lift the corporate veil by imposing obligation on the company as liable to the trustee’s debt or liabilities, even though it was not a part...
    Premium 2651 Words 11 Pages
  • Company Law
    decided by the UK Supreme Court. i. Fraud Re Darby [1911] 1 KB 95 ii. Evasion of a Legal Obligation Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 Gilford Motor v Horne [1933] Ch 935 iii. Sham or Façade The Saudi Al Jubail [1987] SGHC 71 Note that the terms “sham” and “façade” have often been...
    Premium 3543 Words 15 Pages
  • Copmany
    prevent from escaping liability when the court imposes specific performance on such a person. In the case of Gilford Motors Co Ltd v Horne a director had been contracted to work for a company and one of the conditions was that he was not to operate a business similar to that of the claimant company...
    Premium 678 Words 3 Pages
  • Company Law
    Law In the event of evasion of contractual obligations - Gilford Motor Co v Horne -Jones v Lipman Sham purposes: Re FG Films Fraudulent: Re Darby The company is an agent or partner of the controller Taxation and nationality rules: Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre & Rubber...
    Premium 2815 Words 12 Pages
  • Company Law
    the reality behind the company where the company was set up purely to evade a legal obligation, or to allow someone to do something he would not be allowed to do as an individual: Gilford Motor Co v Horne (Case 22) Jones v Lipman (Case 23) Re Bugle Press Ltd (Case 24) (ii) Agency Court may...
    Premium 4455 Words 18 Pages
  • Miss
    GRANTED CORPORATE PERSONALITY BY STATUTE, IT FOLLOWS THAT STATUTE CAN BE SET ASIDE CORPORATE PERSONALITY AND IMPOSE LIABILITY ON THOSE BEHINDE THE VEIL. E G (NO TRADING CERTIFICATE) COMMON LAW – CAN BUT IS NOT QUICK TO DO SO (E G Gilford motors co v Horne [1933] Jones v Lipman [1962] where the...
    Premium 868 Words 4 Pages
  • Incorporation of Company
    disregarded when the only purpose for which it appears to have been formed is the evasion of taxes. – Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee, Re / Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. c)      Fraud or improper conduct- In Gilford Motor Co v. Horne, a company was restrained from acting when its principal...
    Premium 3552 Words 15 Pages
  • World News Ltd
    puppet of its controller; and to act as an agent or partner in a corporate group.” (Harris, Hargovan & Adams 2009) First circumstance is the avoidance of legal obligation which is illustrate in several cases such as Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] 1 Ch 935 and Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd...
    Premium 2303 Words 10 Pages
  • corporate law
    as contractual obligation8, employee entitlements9, Australian court will lift the corporate veil and enforce the legal and contractual obligations. Refer to the case Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne10, the company established by Horne was a ‘mere cloak or sham’ to commit breaches of his contractual...
    Premium 1335 Words 6 Pages
  • Contract Law in Great Britain and the Usa
    under s.108 are voidable 3) LIFTING (PIERCING) THE CORPORATE VEIL Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) Lee v. Lee’s Air Farming Ltd. (1961) Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. (GB) Ltd. (1916) Gilford Motor Company v. Horne (1993) Re Bugle Press (1961) DHN Food Distributors...
    Premium 5431 Words 22 Pages
  • Company Law Notes
    avoid a legal obligation under contract or statute *Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne • H was appointed as managing director of G company for a terms of six years and the service agreement provided that he was not to solicit or entice away from the coy any of its customers during his...
    Premium 6305 Words 26 Pages
  • Salomon vs Salomon
    Corporation Taxes Act 1988 , which enables the Inland Revenue to counteract tax advantages obtained through specific transactions in securities. The context of paramount public interest has been a previous consideration, as demonstrated by Daimler Co Limited v Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great...
    Premium 1544 Words 7 Pages
  • The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality
    , in the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd vs. Horne an employee had entered into an agreement not to compete with his former employer after ceasing employment. In order to try to avoid his restriction the employee set up a company and acted through that. The court held that this maneuver would not be...
    Premium 2917 Words 12 Pages
  • Corporation Law
    Hargovan, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil on Sham Transaction and Companies’(2006) 24 [ 6 ]. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] 1 Ch 935 [ 7 ]. J Devine(2010) ‘Different Types of Companies’ [ 8 ]. See s45 [ 9 ]. J Harri , A Hargovan and M Adams, Australian Corporate Law(2nd ed 2009) at 81 [ 10...
    Premium 1805 Words 8 Pages
  • Company Law
    company was formed for a fraudulent purpose Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] (Court of Appeal) Mr Horne was employed as managing director of GMC Ltd. In his contract of employment, Horne agreed that after leaving GMC he would not solicit its customers. When his contract was terminated, Horne did...
    Premium 10451 Words 42 Pages
  • Law assignment
    only purpose for which it appears to have been formed is the evasion of taxes. – Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee, Re / Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. c) Fraud or improper conduct- In Gilford Motor Co v. Horne, a company was restrained from acting when its principal shareholder was bound...
    Premium 4246 Words 17 Pages
  • Company Law Essay
    and they were to repay all monies owed. In Daimler Co. Ltd. v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd.[11] the courts, on lifting the corporate veil found that the English company was in fact an enemy alien during world War One because of its German shareholders. In Gilford Motor...
    Premium 4626 Words 19 Pages