Salomon v Salomon and Company

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date16 November 1896
Judgment citation (vLex)[1896] UKHL J1116-2
Date16 November 1896

[1896] UKHL J1116-2

House of Lords

Salomon (Pauper)
and
A. Salomon and Company, Limited, et e Contra.
1

After hearing Counsel as well on Monday the 15th as Monday the 22nd and Monday the 29th days of June last, upon the Original Petition and Appeal of Aron Salomon, of Number 167, Amhurst Road, Hackney, in the county of London, praying, That the matter of the Orders and Judgment set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 28th of May 1895, and also a Judgment and Order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of the 14th of February 1895, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Orders and Judgment might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of A. Salomon and Company, Limited, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 28th of May 1895, so far as regards the words "And this Court, being of opinion that it is unnecessary to make any Order on the said Cross Appeal, doth not think fit to make any Order thereon," might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal, or such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Cases respectively of the said A. Salomon and Company, Limited, and the said Aron Salomon, lodged in the said Original and Cross Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on both sides in these Appeals:

2

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 28th of May 1895, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed; And it is further Ordered, That the said Cross Appeal be, and the same is hereby,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
886 cases
10 firm's commentaries
  • UK Supreme Court upholds first successful claim for breach of the "Quincecare" duty financial institutions owe their customers
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 6 November 2019
    ...paragraph 2 of the judgment. 5 See paragraph 11 of the judgment. 6 As established by the House of Lords in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. 7 Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39. 8 See paragraph 33 of the judgment. 9 As held by the Supreme Court in Bilta (UK) L......
  • Assumption of Direct Responsibility for a Subsidiary's Liabilities – Is the Corporate Limited Liability Veil in Tatters?
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 9 August 2012
    ...its members is limited. The concept of the corporate veil derives from Lord Macnaghten's observation in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd., [1897] AC 22, that a 'company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the memorandum'. This concept of separate legal entities h......
  • Prest – Piercing The Corporate Veil? Or Going Around?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 24 June 2013
    ...Starting with the leading authority on the separation of identities between company and shareholders of Salomon v A Salomon and Co Limited [1897] AC 22, Lord Sumption analysed attempts to pierce the corporate veil, referencing Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90, which su......
  • Piercing The Corporate Veil — Recent Developments
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 4 April 2012
    ...can benefit and/or be bound by all other terms of the contract and the consequential effect. Footnotes Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. 433 VTB Capital v Nutritek [2011] EWHC 3107 Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.C. (H.L.) 90......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 books & journal articles
  • The Legal Personality of the Commonwealth of Australia
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review Nbr. 47-1, March 2019
    • 1 March 2019
    ...Theory of the State’ (1953) 65 Juridical Review 255, 288.206. Ibid 362 [142] (emphasis added).207. See, eg, Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, 42 (Lord Herschell); Chaff and Hay AcquisitionCommittee Case (1947) 74 CLR 375, 385 (Latham CJ); ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208......
  • Master or Servant: A Corporation's Liability for the Activities of a Ship's Master
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 72-6, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...or company separated by title. The proximity issue is vital if a55 [1995] 1 AC 171.56 Ibid. at 187.57 [1932] AC 562.58 Ibid. at 581.59 [1897] AC 22. The Journal of Criminal duty of care is owed by legal owners of vessels for corporate man-slaughter and this concept will now be explored.Reco......
  • English Influences on the Historical Development of Fiduciary Duties in Scottish Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Edinburgh Law Review Nbr. , January 2014
    • 1 January 2014
    ...LR 11 App Cas 232; In Re Postlethwaite (1887) LR 35 Ch D 722; Farrar v Farrar (1889) LR 40 Ch D 395 at 409–10 & 415; Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22 (HL); Lagunas Nitrate Co v Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch 392 at 441 per Rigby LJ. It is also noticeable, though space prohibits further dis......
  • Defining Fraud: An Argument in Favour of a General Offence of Fraud
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Crime Nbr. 4-4, February 1997
    • 1 February 1997
    ...WLR 923. Re London & Globe (1903) 1 Ch. 728. Re London United Investments (1992) 2 WLR 850, 2 All ER 842. Salomon ν Salomon & Co. (1897) AC 22. Scroggs ν Scroggs (1755) Ambler 272. Somerton's Case (1433) YB Hil. 9 Hy. VI. Scott ι· Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1975) AC 819. Trli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 forms
  • Chapter INTM120210
    • United Kingdom
    • HM Revenue & Customs
    • Invalid date
    ...as it was seen, shelter behind the facade of corporate identity. The question was finally settled by the Salomon [Salomon v Salomon & Co (1897) AC22] case as late as 1897. Salomon and Co Ltd was a little one-man company set up by a Mr Salomon to take over his business as a leather merchant.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT