Ad
related to: pioneer assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 c for sale ebay motors
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.
Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company called Hartley Baird Ltd using money from the company itself, in contravention of the prohibitions on financial assistance (under Companies Act 1948 s 54 and 190). He had got 80% of the company. Mr Moir was one of the 20% remainder shareholders.
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 Employers' Liability Act 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 42) opened a new area of insurance and one of the many companies formed to serve that market was formed in Perth, Scotland, in 1885. The General Accident and Employers’ Liability Assurance Association was launched by local businessmen with a capital of only £5,000 and its main object was to ...
The company received its royal charter under the Royal Exchange and London Assurance Corporation Act 1719 (6 Geo. 1.c. 18), popularly known as the Bubble Act. [3] Under the terms of this legislation, the Royal Exchange and the London Assurance Company were the only incorporated bodies chartered to write marine insurance.
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.It exemplifies the principal case in which the veil will be lifted, that is, when a company is used as a "mere facade" concealing the "true facts", which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre-existing obligation.
Aveling Barford Ltd v Perion Ltd [1989] BCLC 626 is an English company law case concerning reduction of capital. It held that a sale at an undervalue of an asset was a dressed-up distribution. As the company did not have distributable reserves, the sale was in consequence an unlawful reduction of capital.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning lifting the corporate veil. It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud.