Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 appeared before the House of Lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil. Unusually, the request to do so was in this case made by the corporation's owner.
Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), [1] that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC held that there was enough evidence to lift the veil on the basis that it was a "mere facade". He noted the tension between Adams v Cape Industries plc and later cases and stated that impropriety is not enough to pierce the veil, but the court is entitled to do so where a company is used ‘as a device or façade to conceal the true facts and the liability of the ...
The history of the company includes the nostalgia of red-coated attendants clattering to the fires of London on horse-drawn tenders. [2] The Phoenix figured in case law. In 1796, the company refused to pay damages awarded of £3,000 (2021: £310,000) following a 1792 fire at a house in Tavistock Street, London.
The 1990 accounts (the first on line at Companies House) showed premium income of £3.5 billion but a £121 million pre-tax loss in 1990. After three years of losses, General Accident bounced back to record profits in 1993. This was followed by the purchase of the life assurance company, Provident Mutual in 1996. [4] [3]
Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc [1997] UKHL 30, [1999] CLC 533 is a conflicts of laws case, important for UK company law and English tort law, concerning the claim of a worker in Namibia attempting to sue an employer headquartered in the United Kingdom for breach of the duty of care to ensure proper health and safety in the workplace.
The insurer refused to indemnify Mr. Kosmopoulos on the grounds that the corporation owned the property, even though he was the sole-shareholder of the corporation. The insurer's position was consistent with the 1925 decision of the House of Lords in Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd.
Thomas William Lawson (February 26, 1857 – February 7, 1925) [1] was an American businessman and writer. A highly controversial Boston stock promoter, he is known for both his efforts to promote reforms in the stock markets and the fortune he amassed for himself through highly dubious stock manipulations.