Salomon v Salomon and Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date16 Nov 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
1143 cases
9 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
    • November 6, 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
    • August 9, 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
    • June 24, 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
    • April 4, 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
27 books & journal articles
  • Defining Fraud: An Argument in Favour of a General Offence of Fraud
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Crime Nbr. 4-4, February 1997
    • February 1, 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......
  • The employment law implications of charity mergers
    • United Kingdom
    • Employee Relations Nbr. 23-3, June 2001
    • June 1, 2001
    ...to be the employer. A company is alegal person with a separate and distinct identity from its shareholders(Salamon v. Salamon Company Ltd [1897] AC 22). In practice, some charitiesemploy their employees through a trading subsidiary of their charity. Duringthe merger process, control of the ......
  • Security, Insolvency and Risk: Who Pays the Price?
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 62-5, September 1999
    • September 1, 1999
    ...n 75 above, 55; Goode, n 6 above.166 See Jackson and Kronman, n 29 above, 1147–1148; Buckley, n 29 above; Salomon vA. Salomon &Co [1897] AC 22, 52: ‘Every creditor is entitled to get and to hold the best security the law allowshim to take’: per Lord Macnaghten.The Modern Law Review [Vol......
  • CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER REVIEWED
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Nbr. 1-3, January 1993
    • January 1, 1993
    ...Reform Processes in Corporate Crime', Int J Soc L 1991, 19(2) 209, 211-12. 7 Above at reference 3. 8 See Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. 9 See Smith and Hogan, 'Criminal Law' (6th ed.) p. 170. 10 The identification doctrine origi-nated in a civil case. In Lennard's Carrying Co ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results