Belhaven pubs classification of companies formation of registered companies discuss, in light of case law and the provisions o the companies ordinance, what is a company. Unusually, the request to do so was in this case made by the corporations owner. Assurance co ltd v newman industries ltd no 2 1982 ch 204, particularly at. An important feature of the journal is the case and comment section, in which members of the cambridge law faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent. Type document page start 40 page end 40 is part of book title sealy and worthingtons cases and materials in company law authors l. This has been reaffirmed in breckland group holdings v. He sold the land and timber to a company he formed and received as consideration all the fully paid shares. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 appeared before the house of lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil.
Macaura v northern assurance co ltd macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 appeared before the house of lords concerning the principle of. Macaura sold the whole of the timber to a timber company in consideration of fully paid up shares in the company. Subsequently mr macaura insured the timber against fire on policies in his own name. One of the leading cases in this context is macaura v northern assurance company limited 1925 ac 619. In the federal court of australia victoria district registry general division vid 292 of 2015. He agreed to sell all the timber on the estate in return for the entire issued share capital of irish canadian saw mills ltd. After two weeks, a fire broke out and he claimed the insurance. It follows the life of a company from startup and financing, through directors duties and the issue of shares, to reconstruction and insolvency, providing a concise and comprehensive introduction to the subject without oversimplifying the complex issues involved. The insurance company, northern assurance co ltd, argued that mr macaura did not have an insurable interest as a shareholder in the company. Macaura v northern assurance co case 1925 the case of. Teachers term 2 melbourne vic, command group positions to commence during term 2. Sealy date 20 publisher oxford university press pub place.
Macaura v northern assurance company limited 1925 ac 619 facts. Macaura v northern assurance co free download as word doc. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd wikimili, the free. The second edition has been updated to include recent important cases, including the house of lords decision in johnson v gore wood minority shareholder action phillips v brewin dolphin bell lawrie ltd transactions at an undervalue oneill v phillips unfair prejudicial conduct williams v natural life health foods ltd liability in. Company law law of business associations july 22, 2015. Company law palgrave law masters janet dine download. Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.
Gramophone and typewriter co ltd v stanley 1908 2 kb 89 ca 3 see sections 38 and 71 cama 2004. They argued that the company is a separate legal entity. Are there any exceptions to the rule laid down in the solomon v solomon. Seperate legal entity lee vs lees air farming company limited explained by advocate sanyog vyas duration. Macaura v northern assurance macaura had insured timber in his own name and didnt transfer the. Advantages and disadvantages of incorporation of a company. Macaura v northern assurance company ltd defendants, who moved for a stay before putting in a defence, simply denied liability, and the issue so raised was the matter in dispute. Macaura was the major shareholder of a timber company. Before lord buckmaster, lord atkinson, lord sumner, lord wrenbury and lord phillimore. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd project gutenberg. House of lords, and judicial committee of the privy council, and peerage cases authors great britain. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd ac 619 appeared before the house of lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil.
This volume is a guide to the legal framework in which companies operate. A comparative study of the fundamental elements of chinese. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 case summary. Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about html5.
In other words they are two different legal persons in the eyes of the law. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 members have no interest in a companys property the owner of a timber estate sold a. Macaura v northern assurance co 1925 ac 619 and lee v lees air farming 1961 company as a separate legal entity owns its own property and there is no legal connection between a share in the company and the companys property. He also insured the timber asset of the company on his own name, which was destroyed in fire. Question 3 gita and luis are partners in a catering business called meals4u. Northern assurance co come browse our large digital warehouse of free sample essays. Kosmopoulos was therefore held to have an insurable interest and judgment was given in. The owner of a timber estate sold all the timber to a company which was owned almost solely by him. Insurance fireloss of timberinsurance interest of sole or principal shareholder in company owning timber. This is a company law case on separate property between macaura and northern assurance co. Kosmopoulos v constitution insurance co of canada is a leading supreme court of canada decision on the courts ability to pierce the corporate veilto impose an interest or liability, that is, upon the shareholders of a company instead of the company itself. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 zadie will not be able to make a claim as she did not have an insurable interest.
There is a considerable body of high authority which determines that for an assured to have an insurable interest in property he must have a legal or equitable relation to it at the time the insurance incepts. Macaura, formerly owned a timber estate in northern ireland, who consequently sold the timber to a canadian milling concern, agreeing to accept payment in the shares of the company. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 members have no interest in a companys property. Pdf the corporate veil a critical analysis of prest v.
Subsequently by policies effected in his own name with several insurance companies he insured this timber against fire. Kosmopoulos v constitution insurance co of canada wikipedia. Insurance insurable interest property of company interest of shareholder or. Northern assurance company, limited and others, 1925 a. He insured the timber against fire, but in his own name. The cambridge law journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. He formed an estate company and sold the timber by obtaining 42000 fully paid up shares of 1 each. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd facts macaura own land on which stood timber. Five insurers refused to pay the appellants insurance claim on the ground that he did not have an insurable interest. The consequences of this separation of the company and its members included. Significance of corporate personality and the meaning of lifting the veil of incorporation louise franklin essay law miscellaneous publish your bachelors or masters thesis, dissertation, term paper or essay. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 case.
In macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925, the court upheld this principle, ruling that the majority shareholder in a company who had insured the companys property in his own name could not claim against such a. Macaura owned the large majority of shares in a limited company, trading in timber. The company carried the business of felling and milling timber. Macaura v northern assurance co 1925 what is the fact and the decision and principal and the.
Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 case summary. Macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 ac 619 re harvard securities 1997 ewhc comm 371. Get the knowledge you need in order to pass your classes and more. A company is an artificial person created by law, having separate identity and perpetual succession. Lee v lees air farming the company can enter into contracts with a shareholder as an employee and it is bound because the company is a separate legal entity, distinct from its owner. Indeed, the veil will not be lifted simply in the interests of justice. Others illustrated this distinction further using macaura v northern assurance co ltd 1925 and lee v lees air farming ltd 1961. Macaura v northern assurance co 1925 what is the fact and. Separate legal entity of corporation international journal of social.
He kept on the insurance of timber and other assets within the business but in his own name. Type legal case document date 1925 is part of journal title the law reports. The appellant mr macaura had sold all of the timber then standing upon his land to a company, in which he was a shareholder and. This conclusion does not involve any conflict with the principle stated in cases such as macaura v. Ltd macaura v northern assurance therefore in the given scenario gpl is a separate legal person in the eyes of the law, whilst g is another legal person. Almost a ll the shares of the company were held by macaura. It was held that the veil can only be lifted where it would be just and equitable, specifically to third parties. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journals range includes jurisprudence and legal history. The point in issue in this appeal is that by virtue of its total control over the.