Upload
tiffany-grant
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Argument in Support for (Moot Project)-1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/argument-in-support-for-moot-project-1 1/1
For the principle highlighted from the case of The Albazero, the principle in short identified
where there is no general principle that all companies in a group of companies are to be regarded
as one, as each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity possessed of separate
legal rights and liabilities. From the case of Lee v Lee’s Air Farming , it became evident from the
judgement that the company were 2 separate entities; there was no impediment to them being the
parties to a contract. The principle of corporate personality identifies a company as existing on
its own, where it can sue or be sued itself in its own name. Furthermore, the company holds its
own property and is by itself liable for its own debts, as the benefit of limited liability is
guaranteed to the shareholder.
In the case of Macaura v Northen Assurance Co Ltd , held all the shares in a company, the House
of Lords held that, when Macaura sold property to the company, he ceased to enjoy any legal or
equitable interest in it. The property was wholly and completely owned by the company. Since
shareholders have no rights in property owned by the company, they cannot take out an
insurance policy in respect of it. So, here, when the property was destroyed by fire, it was held
that Macaura could not claim on his insurance policies as they were invalid.
The Court of Appeal (reversing the decision of David Eady QC) in the case of Barakot Ltd v
Epiette Ltd, held that a sole, beneficial shareholder and the company were separate legal entities
and were not to be treated as privies for the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata (a matter
(already judged). This meant, in effect, that, simply because proceedings which a shareholder
had brought against a third party for the recovery of certain sums of money had been dismissed,
did not preclude the company bringing proceedings itself against the third party in respect of the
same money. Both the shareholder and the company had claimed separate agreements with the
third party, which they sought to enforce.
The separation of the shareholders from the company also underlies decisions such as Kuwait
Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd, where it was held that the shareholders,
when appointing or nominating directors to the board, owe no duty of care to third parties who
may deal with the company and suffer loss as a result of the negligence of those directors, and
Northern Counties Securities Ltd v Jackson & Steeple Ltd, where it was held that shareholders
owe no duty to the company when voting in general meeting and could not be compelled to vote
in a particular way, even though the resolution passed as a result of the vote may put the
company in contempt of court.