The concept of Corporate Legal Personality is that a company is a separate legal entity to its owners, who share limited liability for it, unless the court rules against it. It is one the most defying concepts for company law and was first established in Solomon v Solomon case in 1912, where the house of lords ruled that " the company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the memorandum " thus creating the concept of “Corporate Veil”. Currently, under the Company Act 2006, once the company fills in all the needed documentation and registrar issues the certificate, the company comes into existence as a separate legal personality and maybe continue to exist indefinitely (or until it get insolvent) and should be treated …show more content…
First and foremost, since the company is treated as its own legal entity from the date of incorporation the ownership of all the property, contracts, debts belong to it, and therefore in normal circumstances in case of problems it would get sued, not the members of the company, thus letting them only have a limited liability over it (limited by their investment in the company), which allows to separate people who own the company from those who control it, since their interest might not be aligned in all times. It is particularly true in cases of large conglomerates, such as Barclays bank
Contracts that were entered before the incorporation are a bit of grey area. Normally the company would not benefit from it nor would it be held liable by it, unless they manage to adopt it through ratification. To do that they would have to prove that the contract was entered by a promoter on behalf of the company and that it would benefit it. This could be forced by the other party as well, should the newly incorporated company try to hide behind the fact that it was a pre-incorporation
…show more content…
However, this is not always a positive thing for a company as demonstrated in Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd, where the owner insured timber on his own name, but when it burned the insurance company was able to claim that since the timber was not owned by him, but by his company, he had no interest in it and therefore refused to
Liability: Investors have limited liability. This protects investors from having litigation brought against them. If the investor is a managing partner, however they then could have their personal assets and property employed to satisfy any debt the S Corp has accrued.
Control – The shareholders have control of the company. They elect a board of directors who oversee business decisions.
This is similar to the case of Kelner v Baxter (1866), where a team of directors had entered into a contract for a new hotel business, where the hotel business had not been registered, in order to purchase wine. Later when the company got registered, the contract got ratified. Unfortunately, the wine had been consumed before paying the bills, and later the company went into liquidation. The members had been sued. This is because the directors acted without any principal, as the company was not registered at that time of the
As previously established, companies are legal entities. As such, they may be criminally responsible for offences requiring mens rea by application of the identification principle. The identification principle, or doctrine, is where the “acts and state of mind” whom represent the “controlling mind” of the company will be imputed to the company itself (R v Lennards Carrying Co and Asiatic Petroleum (1915); R v Bolton Engineering Co v Graham (1957); (R v Andrews Weatherfoil and others (1972)). These cases were prosecuted under the common law.
So the theory behind the whole argument is that while the shareholders are involved in the Business they simply do not own the business.
Distinct legal entity separates from individuals who compose it, thus insulating the shareholder from personal liabilities. Generally, shareholders are not personally liable for corporate
...oration to exist there must be individuals who are running it. Therefore any offence that is committed by a corporation, in actually is being committed by individual/s in the course of their occupation.
The re-use of an insolvent company is protected by UK insolvency law. It helps to protect the interests of investors and creditors are not damaged by a lack of transparency relating to the director's involvement with an insolvent company, and continued involvement with its phoenix.
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.
A registered company, as an artificial person is separate from its members and exists only by virtue of the Companies Act under which it is incorporated. When a business is incorporated, it becomes a separate legal entity and, therefore, can be sued and sue without affecting the shareholders personal assets. This was established in “Salomon v A Salomon Co.Ltd”. Separate legal personality is known as the veil of Incorporation. This protects the shareholder and places the responsibility of the company onto the directors. These duties are outlined in the Companies act 2014.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, defines corporate personality as “The distinct status of a business organization that has complied with law for its recognition a legal entity and that has an independent legal existence from that of its officers, directors, and shareholders” (2008). According to this definition, the corporation has the ability to sue and be sued, buy, sell and lease property in its own name but that it is separate from is officers and shareholders. However, we find that this is not necessarily true, as in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,
In summary, the rule in the Salmon case that upon incorporation, a company is generally considered to be a new legal entity separate from its shareholders has currently continued to be the law in courts or common law jurisdictions. The case is of particular significance in company law, firstly; it establishes the canon that when a company acts, it does so in its own name and right and not merely an agent of its owner, secondly; it establishes the important doctrine that shareholders under common law are not liable for the company’s debts beyond their initial capital
By definition, ‘legal personality’ means the company is distinct from its members and it is not the agent of those shareholders. When there is an insolvency of the company, the members of the company is not liable for that as there is a separate legal entity. Salomon is a landmark case which first set out this principle and it is mainly about limiting the liabilities of the whole in order to protect the corporate groups by structuring themselves in ways when the company went insolvent. Since then, most of the traders are trying to attain the benefits from the Salomon principle by choosing their company limited by shares. As a matter of fact, the separate nature of the corporation from its members has been recognized in the 17th century and the early example would be seen in Foss v Harbottle. Although the courts were avid to apply this principle, it is notable that they deviated ever so often from that by ‘piercing the corporate
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.
There are two types of limited companies: Private and public. Shareholders own private limited companies. Members of the public cannot buy the shares and the shareholders cannot buy or sell their shares without agreement from the other shareholders. Family owned businesses or larger businesses such as Virgin would fit into this category. Public limited companies have shares on the stock market and can be bought and sold by any member of the public, this way the company can raise further capital and expand their resources. Tesco and British Telecom are such examples. Both these types of limited companies have limited liability, which means the owners of the business are only liable for the amount they invested in the business (unless the debt is so large that the business has to be sold to repay the debt).