In the given situation the issue is whether the daughter of Bob has provided him a better idea to form an organisation under the rules of common Law.
The court has stated in the given case Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 225 that the registered organisation is said to be the artificial legal person that states the identity of the company is not exactly similar as the identity of their owners. After the fusion of the organisation has been finished in a legal way the artificial legal person of the organisation has been created. This organisation has the limited liability that states the liability that the company owes has been not the owner’s liability. A concept of Veil of incorporation protects them (Ben-Shahar and Porat 2016).
However, the court’s decision has been taken in a conflicting way by other courts in several other cases. The case Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 was one such case. In the given case the judges had stated that the company is said to be the artificial legal person and the owners of the company are being protected by the idea of veil of incorporation. Though, the veil of incorporation could be imposed if it is proved in court that the company set with an aim that is fraudulent or to vanish any prevailing obligation. The court can raise the veil of incorporation if these actions are complying with interest of the Justice.
The concept regarding the upliftment of Veil of incorporation was recognized by passing the decision through the court. Several reasons are there because of which the court might raise the company’s veil of incorporation. Some of the cases regarding this are Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267 and Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1961) AC 12.
The idea of integrating veil of incorporation in the state of Australia is taken from English source. The court has stated in the given case Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443 that the court has the power to hold the company’s members who has the similar identity as organisation by uplifting the veil of incorporation in such circumstances when the organisation turns as a disguise in which the members of the company operate. This states that the organisation has been created so that the members of the organisation can continue with the unethical and illegal activities in the protection given through the company’s artificial legal person.
The phrase piercing the veil of incorporation in the given case Brewarrana v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 4 SASR 476 was incorporated ironically through the judge. On another side, it has been stated by the judges in the given case Walker v Humgerfords (1987) 44 SASR 532 that the idea of uplifting theveil of incorporation has been now outdated.
The court has stated in the given case Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 254 that the real meaning of uplifting veil of incorporation is when a single organisation is created then artificial legal person is made but the court on certain situations will look back the veil of incorporation to perceive it’s actual controllers. In the given case, Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549, the court had rejected the upliftment of the veil of incorporation. The court had stated that the upliftment of the veil of incorporation can be done if the organisation is integrated to prevent the legal obligation.
The evidences of the above mentioned case states that by the rules of protective Law, it is said that in order to catch scallops that to more than fifty tons is illegal for any individual in one year. Furthermore, restriction has been put by the authority of marketing to buy fifty tons of scallops from individual each year. The legislation also states that an individual do not have the right to sell the scallops that has been caught to other individual. However he can only sell those scallops to the authority of marketing in the state of New South Wales. An individual will be imposed with a penalty of $100000 if he violates these rules. The daughter of Bob has advised her father to create a company as he holds the ability to catch scallops more than fifty tons. This means that the organisation has been formed for an inappropriate purpose. The purpose for the formation of the company is to even out the liability to protect the legislation. Thus, the above situation states that the organisation is not created for a good purpose and the objective of the organisation is to prevent obligations under law and the court would impose veil of incorporation and will held Bob responsible for any kind of offence that will be committed through the organisation.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that Bob must not create an organisation to prevent obligations under Law. If Bob forms an organisation then the feature of limited liability of the organisation will not protect him because the court would impose veil of incorporation.
Does New Nirvana Ltd, the main organisation of the subsidiary organization Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd could be held responsible for negligence that has been made by the company Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd
The case David Brian Chandler v Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB), the responsibility regarding the totally owned subsidiary of the main company has to determine through the court in relation to negligence. The court held in the above mentioned case that the main company of the totallypossessed subsidiary owe towards an individual a duty to take care who was affected by subsidiary’s negligence. In the above mentioned case, the court had stated that though no authority of relevance is there that can help an individual to know that he has duty to avoid the third party to cause damage. In the situation of the totally owned subsidiary and the main company, the main organisation has the duty to take care regarding those individuals who might get affected by subsidiary organisation if the main organisation has the control over the subsidiary’s affairs.
In order to recognise whether the duty to take care has been possessed by the main company, the test of three steps are there that has to apply as given in case Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL. Initially, it is seen whether there is any existing prudent predictable damage, secondly whether there was any nature of proximity in the relationship between claimant and defendant and third one is whether it would be prudent and just to impose such duty. It has been said that if the above three factors have been satisfied then the main company will have to owe duty to take care of the injured person by the actions of the subsidiary organization (Fulbrook 2017).
In the above circumstance, it is given that the subsidiary company of the latest Nirvana Ltd is Nuclear Blast Sounds Pty Ltd. The Hard Rock Band’s members are Nirvana’s board of directors. Nirvana’s objective is to set band concerts. The subsidiary company has the responsibility to set up the system of sound at the concert. It is stated that subsidiary organisation had negligently in a concert set the system so loud and high that five audiences had got the damage of hearing permanently. As per the rules of above mentioned cases, the main company will be held responsible for all the negligent activities done by its subsidiary organisation. This might happen if the acts of subsidiary organisation have been controlled by main company. The board of directors of subsidiary and the main company are same. Furthermore, through the implementation of the test of three stage, it can be mentioned that theclose proximity was there among the subsidiary organisations and the main company and by imposing the duty to take care on main company regarding the acts of subsidiary company will be reasonable and fair. Thus, in the provided circumstances it could be mentioned that Nirvana will owe duty to take care to any individual who is harmed through the acts of its secondary company Nuclear Blast.
Conclusion
Thus, by the above situation it could be concluded that the main company Nirvana Limited could be held responsible for the act of negligence that has been committed by the subsidiary company Nuclear Blast.
Discuss the lawful position of the company Millennium Pty Ltd where Michael and Simon have detached Don from the position of solicitor of organisation and a lawful proceeding is brought through Don to the constitution’s contrary.
The rules regarding the acts of the registered company is dealt by the Corporation Act (Cth) 2001. There are other provisions that deals with company’s constitution.
The rules of the section 125 of the Corporation Act states that the company might have certain terms of its constitution that might restrict the powers to be exercised. However, the power exercised through the organisation will not be considered as invalid if the power is not complying with the restrictions that has been imposed through the constitution. The action of the organisation will not be considered as invalid as it is further side of the term of such term that has been set through their organisation in their constitution.
The court had stated in the given case Hickman v Kent or Romney March Sheep-Breeders Association [1915] 1Ch 881 that the rules given by the company’s constitution results in forming the statutory contract among their members.
The court had stated in the given case Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co (1875) 1EX D 20 that the members do not have the right to impose a rule regarding the constitution contrary to the other members to gain the personal interest.
The rules of the section 140 of Corporation Act states that the rules given in the company’s constitution results in forming the contract that is statutory among their members and organisation with members. In this contract, an obligation is there that these members have to obey the constitution’s provisions as long as they have been appropriate for them.
The above situation states that Don, Michael and Simon had started a new company named Millennium Pty Ltd. As per the company’s constitution, Don is supposed to be the company’s solicitor regarding the buying or selling of the land on company’s behalf. Furthermore it is also stated that when a dispute is there among the company’s members, then it is supposed to be statedto the arbitrator firstly before it is challenged in the court. Simon and Michael have already met a new solicitor so that they can remove Don from this position. However, Don by not going to the arbitrator had filed a case against the organisation.
The rules of the case of Hickman and the rules provided under the section 140(1) states that the object of Constitution behave as the contract among the organisation and the members. Thus in the above case it has been provided that the constitution stated that the differences among the members needs to be initially referred to the arbitrator but the acts of Don has led to the violation of the legal agreement with the organisation.
However, the section 125 of the Corporation Act deliberates that an action that is further side of the company’s constitution is not considered to be invalid as the action is against company’s constitution. Furthermore, Eley’s case states that the members might not enforce the constitution’s term to achieve personal interest. In the present circumstances it could be said that Simon and Michael do not have any personal interest. Though, Don’s act is not considered to be valid according to the section 125 of the Corporation Act but the contract has been violated by him that was formed as per the rules of the section 140 of Corporation Act.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above situation that the rules of the section 140 of Corporation Act has been violated by Don.
References
Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433
Brewarrana v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 4 SASR 476
Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549
Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL
Corporation Act (Cth) 2001
David Brian Chandler v Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)
Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267
Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co (1875) 1 EX D 20
Hickman v Kent or Romney March Sheep-Breeders Association [1915] 1 Ch 881
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1961) AC 12
Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443
Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 254
Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22
Walker v Hungerfords (1987) 44 SASR 532
Fulbrook, J., 2017. Outdoor activities, negligence and the law. Routledge.
Ben-Shahar, O. and Porat, A., 2016. Personalizing Negligence Law. NYUL Rev., 91, p.627.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
