Critical Analysis Of The Case Of Salmon V. Salmon

In the following essay salmon v salmon will be used to analyse the bases of principle or test used to determined when the veil will be pierced in relation to statute or the court. Firstly, I would also like to examine the case of salmon v salmon in respect to the three principle that have provided a foundation to lifting the veil of incorporation. Follow by critical analysis of key terms that may be used to examine the cases that will be discussed. Finally, we will use salmons’ v salmon and subsequent cases and statues to analyse the three principle or test used to determined when the veil will be pierced.

Firstly, definition for veil of incorporation is the separation of company from its members and the meaning to lift or to pierced would

Base on the summary House of lord in the case of salmon and compacts act 2006 section 16(2) and 15(1) Separate legal entity can be defined as when the company at law is an invisible and intangible artificial person created due to the incorporation of a business, and it must be treated like any other dependent person with its right and liabilities appropriate to itself. Furthermore, from a combination of sources such as section 7 and 16 of company act 2006 and insolvency act 1987, and Machen (1911). the term limited liability can be defined as when a person financial liability to the company is only limited to the sum of money he or she has invested into the firm. Hence if the company was to go into insolvency or been sued it is no longer liability to shareholder but liability to the company as an individual. Hence this definition is crucial to the examination of cases in relation to corporate veil and separate legal personality due to this terms can be expressed and used in various forms. In the case of salmon, Mr. Salomon sold his company to a new company he had set up for the purpose of protection from the companies act 1982. All the conditions were met, for example Mr. salmon and his family its now participating as member of the new corporation which consist of seven members that is require under the company act 1982. In the near future the business went into insolvent liquidation. And

Reason could be due to the way judges interpret information, clarity of statues, conflict between principals and methods. However, that does not mean it’s not a single principle or method due to new method are constantly been developed for example the case in smith stone & knight ltd v Birmingham corporation (1938) and the unyielding rock of Solomon which is still been referred back to as the basis in the corporate veil. Therefore, it will not be possible in the short run it will not be possible however it does not represent it may not be possible in the near