''Wallersteiner v Moir''

974 Year 974 ( CMLXXIV) was a common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Europe * Battle of Danevirke: Emperor Otto II defeats the rebel forces of King Harald I, who ha ...

1 WLR 991 is a

UK company law The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal ...

case concerning

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 so ...

. This case was followed by a connected decision, '' Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)'', that concerned the principles behind a

derivative claim A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits a ...

Facts

Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company called Hartley Baird Ltd using money from the company itself, in contravention of the prohibitions on financial assistance (under

Companies Act 1948 The Companies Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo.6 c.38) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which regulated UK company law. Its descendant is the Companies Act 2006. Cases decided under this Act *''Bushell v Faith'' 970AC 1099 *''Scottish ...

s 54 and 190). He had got 80% of the company. Mr Moir was one of the 20% remainder shareholders. Wanting to expose Dr Wallersteiner's various dealings, he circulated a letter to shareholders. Dr Wallersteiner sued for libel.

Judgment

Geoffrey Lane J at first instance struck out the claim for want of prosecution, as it was apparent that Dr Wallersteiner was just biding time. But he also entered judgment against Dr Wallersteiner. He appealed. Lord Denning MR in a condemnatory judgment held that Dr Wallersteiner's delays were "intentional and contumelious", and the action for libel should be struck out. In the course of the conclusion he noted that various Liechtensteinian companies which Dr Wallersteiner held, could be accessed to get back the ill-gotten gains, and he thought so on this basis. He went on,

1 WLR 99, 1013

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References

* United Kingdom company case law United Kingdom corporate personality case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 1974 in United Kingdom case law

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes

References