|
Gencor V Dalby
''Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby'' 000EWHC 1560 (Ch)is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Facts Mr Dalby was a director of the ACP group of companies, including Gencor ACP Ltd. He dishonestly diverted assets and opportunities to his British Virgin Islands company. Gencor ACP sought to force him and his company to repay the money. He also paid his son £24,000 a year for work, even though the son was still in school. Judgment Rimer J held that Mr Dalby and the offshore company must return the benefits. Mr Dalby could only have escaped liability if he had obtained the consent of ACP's shareholders for his actions. Both Mr Dalby and his Virgin Islands company were liable to account to ACP for the diverted money and lifting the corporate veil on the Virgin Islands company was appropriate since it was directly controlled by Mr Dalby and in reality functioned as his offshore bank account. The payment to Mr Dalby's son was invalid because it was an unauthorised sala ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Justice
The High Court of Justice in London, known properly as His Majesty's High Court of Justice in England, together with the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, are the Courts of England and Wales, Senior Courts of England and Wales. Its name is abbreviated as EWHC (England and Wales High Court) for legal citation purposes. The High Court deals at Court of first instance, first instance with all high value and high importance Civil law (common law), civil law (non-criminal law, criminal) cases; it also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and tribunals, with a few statutory exceptions, though there are debates as to whether these exceptions are effective. The High Court consists of three divisions: the King's Bench Division, the #Chancery Division, Chancery Division and the #Family Division, Family Division. Their jurisdictions overlap in some cases, and cases started in one division may be transferred by court order to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Piercing The Corporate Veil
Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil. A simple example would be where a businessman has left his job as a director and has signed a contract to not compete with the company he has just left for a period of time. If he sets up a company which competed with his former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a "sham" or a "cover"; and that as the new company is completely owned and controlled by one person that the former employee is deliberately ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dishonest Assistance
Dishonest assistance, or knowing assistance, is a type of third party liability under English trust law. It is usually seen as one of two liabilities established in ''Barnes v Addy,'' the other one being knowing receipt. To be liable for dishonest assistance, there must be a breach of trust (law), trust or fiduciary duty by someone other than the defendant, the defendant must have helped that person in the breach, and the defendant must have a dishonest state of mind. The liability itself is well established, but the mental element of dishonesty is subject to considerable controversy which sprang from the House of Lords case ''Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley''. History It is a common belief that dishonest or knowing assistance originates from Lord Selbourne's judgment in ''Barnes v Addy'': As can be seen, the judgment laid down two heads of liability: one based on receipt of trust property (knowing receipt) and the other on assisting with knowledge in a dishonest and fraudulent design ( ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
