The Case Of Gilford Motor Co Ltd V Horne (1933)

1141 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The veil concept

There are several examples where “the veil is lifted” by case law. In the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] CH 935 1, a company cannot be used in order to avoid legal obligations or to commit fraud. A person is not allowed to use his or her own company to abstain from contractual obligation. Horne was appointed by Gilford Motor Co Ltd for six years employment and he had signed an agreement with the terms of he is not allowed to solicit or entice away any customers of the Gilford, during his employment or after the termination of the employment. Horne resigned three years later; he had formed a new company which competes with his former employer. He also sent out the circulars to the customers of his former employer. However, Gilford
Birmingham Corporation, a local government authority, was looking for a compulsory acquisition of land which operated by a subsidiary company, Birmingham Waste Co Ltd. The owner of the land is Smith, Stone & Knight. Birmingham Waste Co Ltd was a wholly owned subsidiary of Smith, Stone & Knight.2 However, Birmingham Corporation refused to apportion compensation for disturbance of business to Birmingham Waste Co Ltd. Birmingham Corporation claimed that the subsidiary company did not own the land and not entitled to the compensation claim. The court, Atkinson J (Judge) held that the subsidiary company acted as an agent of the holding company and Birmingham Corporation must pay for the compensation. Nevertheless, Atkinson J had formulated six criteria that must be fulfilled to verify the agency relationship. By giving an example of the situation, King Sdn.Bhd is a subsidiary company of Queen Sdn.Bhd. King occupies premises which owns by Queen. King is carrying on the business on behalf of Queen. The government decides to purchase the premise as a compulsory for another purpose of use. Therefore, Queen claims for the compensation due to the disturbance of the acquisition for the premises which is occupied by King now. However, the government authority refuses to make a claim to King as King is holding less than one year of the land tenancy, King is not entitled to the compensation according to the relevant legislation. In fact, King is acted as an agent and conducting the business on behalf of Queen. Therefore, Queen can sue the authority for the compensation claim due to disturbance of business. Queen is entitled to the compensation as the subsidiary (King) is merely an agent of its parent

Show More
Related

  • ASIC V. Rich 2009: NSWSC 1229

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    This decision was made in good faith and cannot be conspicuously construed to have self-interests veiled in them. Further, the executive directors made an informed decision to refrain from passing this information to the board and they did believe that this would be in the best interests of the company as disclosure would have brought an end to the company’s existence much before the actual downfall. Thus this judgment met all the requisites prescribed under the provisions of Section 180 (2) of the Corporations Act, 2001 (Rawhouser, Cummings and Crane 2015). This case was the first to comprehensively lay down the business judgment defense and apply it to the facts and circumstances of a case. This defense would negate the apparent breach of the duties of the directors as prescribed by the statute and under common

    Read More

  • British Law In The Late 1800's

    1345 Words  | 3 Pages

    The system of crime and law enforcement had hardly changed in Britain since the medieval times. Justices of the Peace or JPs were appointed by the Crown since 1361. Before the night watchmen and parish constables were introduced a primitive police force was introduced and the JPs were assisted by constables who only worked part time and were very unreliable as the pay was really bad. The early stages of the force consisted of a night watchmen and parish constables, who were prior to the creation of the main police force. Watchmen were groups of men, usually authorised by a state, government, or society, to deter criminal activity and provide law enforcement. Constables were required to apprehend anyone accused of a felony and bring criminals to a justice of the peace. They also had a general responsibility to keep the peace. There was no expectation that they would investigate and prosecute crimes because of limited responsibility and training. Night watchmen patrolled the streets between 9 or 10pm until sunrise and were expected to examine all suspicious characters. In the City of London, the City Marshall and the Beadles (Parish wardens) conducted daytime patrols. Similar to the night watchmen, primary responsibilities were to patrol and deter, drunkenness, beggars, vagrants and prostitutes and to act as a deterrent against more serious offences. Over the course of this period, the arrangements by which men served as constables and watchmen changed significantly, to incorporate how felons were detected and apprehended.

    Read More

  • Whelan V. Speedy Motors

    566 Words  | 2 Pages

    In a memo from Helia Hull dated September 20, 2016, the details of the incident involve an inadvertent disclosure of privileged attorney-client documents submitted for discovery by Rosen & Quinn of Chicago, council for defendant in Whelan v. Speedy Motors, Inc. The suit arose as a product liability case from the alleged injuries suffered by Ms. Whelan when the accelerator pedal installed in a Wondercart manufactured by Speedy, failed to function properly. On behalf of Speedy our office was retained for the purpose of performing certain aspects of discovery that later proved to be the result of the inadvertent disclosure.

    Read More

  • The Case Of DPP V Carr

    1850 Words  | 4 Pages

    The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.

    Read More

  • Case Brief Gates V Collier

    324 Words  | 1 Pages

    Is cruel and unusual and punishment a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the constitution?

    Read More

  • Aboriginal Canadians and The Criminal Justice System

    934 Words  | 2 Pages

    At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...

    Read More

  • Companies and the UK Insolvency Law

    666 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...me a director of the third company within five years after the liquidation of the two companies. The third company was funded by a creditor, Mr. Silverleaf. When the third company was wound up, Mr. Silverleaf then had knowledge of the previous two companies’ failures and claimed a debt of close to ₤135,000 . Mr. Silverleaf was successful in bringing proceedings under sections 216 and 217 of Insolvency Act 1986 even there’s no evidence of any asset transfer between the companies.

    Read More

  • Co-Ownership of Land: The Aqcuisition of Rights and the Quantification of Shares

    1636 Words  | 4 Pages

    Current English land law on the co-ownership of interests of land has developed quite a contentious history pertaining to the relationship between the acquisition of rights and the quantification of the shares. In terms of co-ownership, there are huge variances and legal consequences when legal ownership is in one person’s name compared to two. These differences can be seen in various landmark cases which have created precedent and developed refined principles such as Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and the Stack v Dowden. For the courts, it has often been relatively complex to distinguish between constructive and resulting trusts and to decide on the procedure to be used for the quantification of equitable entitlement once the decision to impute has been established. The quantification of resulting trusts is carefully considered in both, Midland Bank v Cooke and Stack v Snowden. In many co-ownership cases dealing with the acquisition of rights and the quantification of shares, the outcomes aren’t always proportionate. Reasons can include the ambiguities in the identification and changes of common intention and contributions types. In speaking to this issue, Baroness Hale stated in Stack v Dowden that “each case will turn on its own facts” and furthermore elaborated on the conditions for a common intention construct arising. It is furthermore important to critically discuss the repercussions these cases have for the future of co-ownership law to reconcile existing sources of confusion.

    Read More

  • Piercing the Corporate Veil

    512 Words  | 2 Pages

    Piercing the Corporate Veil Since the establishment in Salomon v Salomon, the separate legal personality has been long recognised in English law for centuries, that is to say, a limited liability company has its own legal identity distinct from its shareholders or directors. However, in certain circumstances the courts may be prepared to look behind the company at the actions of the directors and shareholders. This is known as "piercing the corporate veil". There are numerous cases concerning the "piercing the corporate veil", among which, Jones v Lipman[1] was a typical case. Lipman sold land to Jones by a written contract but refused to complete the sale because of another good deal, instead he offered damages for breach of contract.

    Read More

  • Proprietary Estoppel Case Study

    3253 Words  | 7 Pages

    It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.

    Read More

  • Legal Issues of Constitution of Trust

    2731 Words  | 6 Pages

    The legal issue of constitution of trusts is very important, judicial decisions over the years on cases where trusts were not properly constituted indicates that constitution of trusts could be quite complex and must be very cautiously done by a property owner as a simple factor could make his trust void. An express trust is completely constituted either by effectively transferring property to trustees or by effectively declaring a trust. In case of personal property, the declaration of the trust may be put in writing; however, equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. It is only when the trust is constituted that it is binding on the settlor. The long-standing idea that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift can be traced back to the 19th century cases of Ellison v Ellison and Milroy v Lord , and was further emphasized in the 20th century in the case of Re Fry .

    Read More

  • The Relationship Between the Constructive Trust and Proprietary Estoppel

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the case of Yaxley v Gotts (2000) ch 162, the defendant, Gotts bought a building to Yaxley, a self employed builder and in...

    Read More

  • Separate Legal Personality Case Study

    909 Words  | 2 Pages

    In company law, registered companies are complicated with the concepts of separate legal personality as the courts do not have a definite rule on when to lift the corporate veil. The concept of ‘Separate legal personality’ is created under the Companies Act 1862 and the significance of this concept is being recognized in the Companies Act 2006 nowadays. In order to avoid personal liability, it assures that individuals are sanctioned to incorporate companies to separate their business and personal affairs. The ‘separate legal personality’ principle was further reaffirmed in the courts through the decision of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. , and it sets the rock in which our company law rests which stated that the legal entity distinct from its

    Read More

  • The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality

    2542 Words  | 6 Pages

    The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.

    Read More

  • The Albazero Case Study

    892 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.

    Read More

More about The Case Of Gilford Motor Co Ltd V Horne (1933)

Open Document