Salomon v Salomon and Company
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1896 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1896] UKHL J1116-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 16 November 1896 |
[1896] UKHL J1116-2
House of Lords
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:
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
- Loh Bee Tuan v Shing Yin Construction (Kota Kinabalu) Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors
- Loh Bee Tuan v Shing Yin Construction (Kota Kinabalu) Sdn Bhd and Others
- Eastool Industries Sdn Bhd v Getfirms Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
- Tjanting Handicraft Sdn Bhd v Utusan Melayu (M) Sdn Bhd
-
Out With The Hould: Landmark Decision Paves The Way For Shareholder Misrepresentation Claims Against Companies In Liquidation
...when shares in a company were not considered to be property and 17 years before the House of Lords' seminal decision in Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22, when the concept of a company having a separate legal personality was in its infancy and there remained strong influences from the law of p......
-
UK Supreme Court upholds first successful claim for breach of the "Quincecare" duty financial institutions owe their customers
...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) Ltd v......
-
Assumption of Direct Responsibility for a Subsidiary's Liabilities – Is the Corporate Limited Liability Veil in Tatters?
...of 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 ha......
-
Prest Piercing The Corporate Veil? Or Going Around?
...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......
-
The Protection Of Seafarers' Wages In Admiralty: A Critical Analysis In The Context Of Modern Shipping
...the protection of its creditors (Ant N Sakkoulas, Athens, 2000) 97. 306 The Evpo Agnic [1988] 1 WLR 1090. 307 See eg: Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22, 47-54; the Companies Act 1993 (NZ), sections 15 and 97(1). (2008) 22 A&NZ Mar LJ The Protection of Seafarers’ Wages in Admiralty In contrast,......
-
The director's duty to take into account the interests of company creditors: when is it triggered?
...1986). See also the comments of the Jenkins Committee: United Kingdom, Report of the Company Law Committee (Cmnd 1749, 1962) [89]. (2) [1897] AC 22. (3) Amongst other things, this allows directors to contract more efficiently. See William Allen, `Ambiguity in Corporation Law' (1997) 22 Dela......
-
International Multiple Derivative Actions.
...important desideratum of not permitting errant directors to stifle suits arising out of their own wrongdoing."). (28.) Salomon v. Salomon [1897] AC 22 (HL) (firmly establishing the concept of separate legal personality and remains arguably the most important case in the company-law of commo......
-
Master or Servant: A Corporation's Liability for the Activities of a Ship's Master
...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......