It is legal to enforce Dozey’s charge against Sleepy Head Pty Ltd.
Facts: Dozey, a sole trader owns a business called ‘Sleepy Head’. He incorporated a company called ‘Sleepy Head Pty Ltd’ later, and this company purchased the business ‘Sleepy Head’ from Dozey with a substantial block of shares and debentures secured by a charge over all of the company’s assets from Dozey. ‘Sleepy Head Pty Ltd’ was not successful and went insolvent and it is taken care of by the liquidator.
Legal issue: Dozey is a secured creditor of the company ‘Sleepy Head Pty Ltd’ and would like to enforce his charge against the company, but the liquidator, who is taking care of the insolvent company, rejected his claim.
Relevant Case Law: Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd  .
Discussion: According to the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd , upon the incorporation of a company, it becomes a separate legal entity from its founders, directors, members and controllers. Debts entered into using the company’s name belong to the company and not to the founder or controller or the director or anyone else who authorised the debt . Thus, even though Dozey is the founder of ‘Sleepy Head Pty Ltd’, they are legally two different entities and their debts are separate. Therefore, Dozey should be treated as the company’s secured creditor for the company’s debenture and he is entitled to enforce his charge against Sleepy Head Pty Ltd for his claim.
It is not legal to enforce Risk Ltd for the insurance under the assumption that Dozey did not transfer ownership of the stock to ‘Sleepy Head Pty Ltd’.
Facts: Dozey sold his business ‘Sleepy Head’ to ‘Sleepy Head Pty Ltd’ with an insurance with Risk Ltd against fire, theft and the like in the sum of $1...
... middle of paper ...
...s are as follows :
1. Decide whether the company requires a constitution and if so, draft it,
2. Obtain written consent from ease proposed director and new security for the new company,
3. Reserve a name for the company,
4. Locate registered office,
5. Locate a principal place of business,
6. Determine the company’s share structure and members,
7. Complete a Form 201, ensure it is signed and lodged with ASIC
8. Pay registration fee,
9. Receive from ASIC the certificate of registration – company has full legal capacity and powers of an individual: s 124. The company remains in existence until it is deregistered: s119
Corporations Act 2001, viewed 19 December 2013,
Harris, J, Hargovan, A, & Adams, M, 2013, Australian Corporate Law, 4th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia
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
There has been a breach of contract for the Tinker’s Home Security Service and the Tinker & Tailor’s Home Security Service.The matrix chart, I have included will help will compare and contrast the personal liability exposure as an owner In each of these business entities, such as, a sole proprietorship, general and limited partnership, corporation and limited liability corporation, I will analyze how I might limit my liability as a business owner.. I will also examine the business I plan to own one day. I will look at the best business organizational form for my company, as well as looking at the personal liability exposure, management, taxation and ease of formation. Learning the underpinning or foundation of business law will help us as owners to learn to avoid legal action as a result of unforeseen mishap.
In Bahr v Nicolay (No 2), Wilson and Toohey JJ stated that indefeasibility does not protect a registered proprietor from the consequences of his own conducts where those conducts give rise to a personal equity in another. Furthermore, as Brennan J pointed out: the purchaser who not only has notice of an antecedent unregistered interest but also purchases on terms that he will be bound by the unregistered interest is subject to that interest.
The case study in question is associated with the area of Company Law. Company Law is concerned with the regulation of powers, rights, duties and liabilities of the company and constituencies that are closely linked to the company . Company Law incorporates the Companies Act 2006, which regulates the relationship between the company and its managers. The company is a separate legal entity, through the Articles of Association the powers of a company are designated and exercised by the board of directors on behalf of the company. In relation to this we must examine the specific areas of the authority for allotment of shares, grounds on which there may be objections and the procedure of the transfer of shares. Once each area has been fully scrutinized a conclusion can be determined on the legal situation.
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
This project will look at two specific corporate collapses in the U.S. resulting from the Bernie Madoff Ponzie Scheme of 2008 and the Le-Nature Soda Company Pyramid-Ponzie Scandal of 2006. The diverse nature of these organizations (one dealing in financial investments and the other in product manufacturing), yet both their abilities to successfully operate Ponzi schemes , is the primary reason for their selection in this project. This report highlights the accounting and non-accounting frauds conducted within these organizations and analyses the reasons for their collapse.
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
Corporate law is an area of law that directly relates to dealings with corporations within our legal system. “In Ontario, law compromises of statutes, regulations and cases. This means that to understand the law in any area, you must familiarize yourself with the statute or statutes that relate to that area, check related regulations where required, and read cases that show you how the courts have applied those statutes and regulations in real life situations” (Corporate Law for Ontario Businesses, 2012, pg. 2). In this paper I will be doing just that. I am going to be looking at a particular case that happened and examine how the courts applied legal regulations to a real life situation. I will also be examining what it means for a corporation to be a separate legal entity, as well as the level of importance a shareholder has within a company. All of these topics directly relate to the case I will be examining and are important to knowing in order to understand why the court made the decision that they did. Lastly, I will be discussing my own personal opinions on the case and the decision made by the courts.
Secondly, a constitutional term is ‘the memorandum and articles of association of a company formed before 1 July 1998 are taken together to make it the company’s constitution after that date under S1415 of the former Corporations Law, unless they have been repealed or amended since in accordance with S136. The internal governance rule of a company, it can be either replaceable rule of Corporation Act, or the company can develops its own, in addition, it can be the mix of two. However, constitutional term is something that can be added later in the company life with a passed resolution. As S135(2) stated, the adoption of constitutional term is eligible. Also, S136(1) said that after registration adoption must be made through a special resolution.
Lisa’s insurance broker did not make sure she had the proper coverage to reduce her liability if something were to happen to the art gallery. Lisa’s insurance broker, Homer, broke his fiduciary duty to Lisa by not ensuring she had the proper coverage she needed; given that Lisa was responsible for the safekeeping of the artwork that was on consignment. Homer should have taken into consideration that nearly all her inventory, which was on consignment, would not be insured if a fire occurred. Nonetheless, Homer reassured Lisa that she was “well covered” with her policy when she should have had a policy where she would be covered for losses to artwork on consignment as well as fires that didn’t originate on her building
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