Ratio Decidendi
The corporate veil will only be lifted in limited circumstances: where the company is a mere façade concealing the true facts, where a company is an agent of its parent, or where statute authorises it. The fact that a subsidiary is wholly owned and controlled by a parent does not, without more, justify piercing the corporate veil.
তথ্য
Workers in South Africa contracted asbestosis from exposure to asbestos mined and marketed by subsidiaries of Cape Industries plc, an English company. They obtained default judgments in the US against Cape. To enforce those judgments in England, they needed to show that Cape was 'present' in the US through its subsidiaries.
রায়ের সারসংক্ষেপ
The Court of Appeal held that Cape was not present in the US through its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries were separate legal entities, and the corporate veil would not be pierced merely because Cape controlled them. The court identified three circumstances for lifting the veil: façade/sham, agency, and statutory provision. None applied here.
মূল উদ্ধৃতি
"The court is not free to disregard the principle of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd merely because it considers that justice so requires."
— Slade LJ
পরবর্তী ব্যবহার
Consistently cited as the leading authority on the limited circumstances for piercing the corporate veil.
The Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] refined the analysis, distinguishing the 'concealment' principle from the 'evasion' principle.