Corporate Veil Lifting

By

[Name of the Student]

[Name of the College]

[Date]
Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................2
HISTORY.......................................................................................................................................................3
SALOMON PRINCIPLE..................................................................................................................................7
Advantages:.............................................................................................................................................9
Disadvantages:......................................................................................................................................10
Current law................................................................................................................................................10
DENNING VIEW..........................................................................................................................................14
UNCERTAINTY OF LAW..............................................................................................................................16
US LAW COMPARISON...............................................................................................................................18
1. Respect for the Distinct Company Personality Principle in Overall................................................19
2. Ancient Conventional Law Ideas Dependence...............................................................................20
3. Beneficiary.....................................................................................................................................20
4. Absence of Overarching Theory.....................................................................................................20
5. The Role of Policy Considerations.................................................................................................20
Reformulation of the concept...................................................................................................................22
1. Involuntary Piercing.......................................................................................................................22
2. Voluntary Piercing.........................................................................................................................23
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................24
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................26
INTRODUCTION
Throughout many common law and civil law nations, the notion of a corporation as a distinct
institution from its stockholders is generally understood. It is generally viewed as a foundational feature
of company law, and courts are hesitant to break from it. The notion of distinct personality, however, is
not universal, and courts in either common law or civil law nations have the authority to diverge from it.
Once this transpires, the corporate veil is said to be "pinched" or "removed" by the judiciary. Generally,
but hardly often, this will lead in the assignment of guilt on another person, possibly contributing to the
corporate entity (Saxena, 2010).

By dismissing the corporate appearance and witnessing beyond the cloak at the real individuals
in command of the company, the corporate veil may be lifted. Spellenberg (2013) noted that if a
legitimate corporation is exploited illegally and disingenuously, the people engaged will be unable to
shelter behind the firm's name. The judge in this instance will penetrate the court. Per the Black Law
Dictionary 's concept," the piercing the corporate veil is the judicial act of imposing liability on otherwise
immune corporate officers, Directors and shareholders for the corporation's wrongful acts. “Aristotle
said when one thinks of removing the corporate veil of a form, one thinks of a procedure in which the
company entity is ignored and the incorporation bestowed by legislation is overcome by an act of the
entity.

When the idea is at stake, it is allowed to prove that the person who stands behind the
corporation is obliged to fulfill its duties notwithstanding the business's status as a legal person. The
Supreme Court discussed the notion of removing the corporate veil in DDA V. Skipper Construction Co.
Pvt. Ltd., Corporate entities were created to stimulate and develop commercial activity, not to do
criminal acts or deceive people (Cheng, 2011). When the trade mark is proved to be hostile to fairness,
ease, and pleasure of the collector or worker, or just for national good, the corporate veil can
unquestionably be broken.

The purpose is to compare and evaluate scenarios in which the curtain is breached with
integration aims. The common law countries of the United Kingdom and the United States are now
being analyzed. The main purpose of this research is to present a comprehensive and in-depth
examination of how the notion of lifting the veil, which has been legalized, works. Courts in several
countries employ biblical authority, either through court rulings or through law. According to Mujih
(2017), there will be many similarities between the countries being compared, regardless of whether
they are under common law or civil law, in part because the ancient and modern variables that led to
the resurgence of corporation bodies were very similar, and in component because the major company
restrictions in the other areas listed in this study are legal transplants.

The conceptual grounds of veil piercing, it is suggested, are found in the aspect of business form
misuse. Because corporate character arose in reaction to the social necessities, courts determine its
boundaries by looking at what courts interpret as the statutory language behind company laws, which is
to achieve positive socioeconomic and financial results through with an organizations context that
enables enterprise dealings. Because of the significance of corporations in the business world, the
concept of abuse is understood strictly in this situation, as there will requirement to be clarity in
economic concerns (Mujih, 2017).
 Other concerns, according to the research, justify a restricted approach to lifting the veil. For
one thing, looking outside the firm is typically only essential after the company has become insolvent.
Creditor lawsuits towards shareholders or administration, as a result, risk jeopardizing the collective
bankruptcy structure under which creditors’ rights is to be resolved (Cheng, 2011). Additional issue is
the possibility for veil piercing to conflict with other legal principles, notably in tort law. Because tort
legislation is primarily concerned with identifying when civil wrongdoing occurs, it is frequently a better
foundation for deciding whether investors or administration may be held personally liable for a claimed
creditor wrong. Veil piercing has the potential to produce messy and amoral results.

It has been discovered that, in recent years, UK courts have taken a more restricted stance to
veil piercing, owing to the grounds described above. Saxena (2010) highlighted that other judges, in
particular, perceive tort legislation as a more suitable manner of addressing difficulties that are viewed
through prism of corporation law in other countries. Furthermore, although courts have yet to voice an
opinion, they tend to be inclined to more limited UK strategy.

Courts in the United States, on either side, appear to take a broader view of piercing. In the
United States, this is due to the importance placed on shareholder ownership and domination, as well as
the use of piercing the corporate veil in circumstances where other judicial factors would have decided
the outcome. Other courts seem to have participated in veil piercing further than any of the other four
countries studied in this research for this reasons. Intermingling instances, for example, account for the
greatest number of piercings (Spellenberg, 2013). However, some of the instances in issue involve
misuse of corporate property rather than intermixing. In those conditions, it is unsurprising that the
guilty shareholders should have been found liable and could have been brought liable within tort law;
disregarding corporate personhood was essential.

HISTORY
Apart from its American equivalent, which has received consistent court approval throughout
time, the English corporation veil theory has had complex development. The theory has elicited a range
of reactions in English courts, from excitement to downright hatred. The English doctrine's history may
be loosely split into three periods. The first phase spanned the years 1897, when the case of Salomon V.
Salomon was decided, through roughly World War II. This period is regarded as the early experimental
phase because English judges experimented with a variety of theories all through century. The second
phase began after WWII and continued until 1978, when Woolfson V. Strathclyde Regional Council was
established (Nyombi, 2014). This could perhaps be regarded the current theories pinnacle. Lord
Denning, a fervent supporter of breaching the business curtain and one of the greatest influential
English justices of the late twentieth century, is credited for most of the doctrine's vitality at this period.
Woolfson signaled the start of the third phase, which has seen the ideology fall out of popularity and has
persisted to this day.

Considering Salomon's renowned place in English law—the 1897 House of Lords ruling deeply
rooted the supremacy of distinct corporate identity and limited liability—easy it's to abandon that
liability was a contentious issue when it was first introduced. Salomon's limited liability policy was not
formed. The Limited Responsibility Act of 1855, on the other hand, gave limited liability to English firms.
Salomon simply stated that it is available to as such one-man businesses. Tan, Wang and Hofmann
(2018) highlighted that when limited liability was initially advocated in the mid-nineteenth century, it
was met with fierce hostility. In an editorial from 1824, Hardly anything can be more inequitable than
for a few wealthy individuals to give a fraction of their riches for the proposed company, to perform
with that overabundance give the relevance of their entire title and kudos to the culture, and then, Must
the established body's funds prove insufficient to cover all obligations, they should retreat into the
security of their unreal riches, allowing the baits to be gobbled up by the poor fooled fist. After the Act's
implementation, limited responsibility, at least as it applied to "one-man enterprises," remained
contentious.

This is obvious from the appellate ruling in Salomon V. Salomon, when the English Appellate
court placed individual accountability on Mr. Salomon for his business obligations. Despite the fact that
the House of Lords confirmed the independent legal existence of one-man firms in Salomon, the
problem was not finally resolved. Cheng-Han, Wang and Hofmann (2019) noted that soon after
Salomon, Courts started to breach the curtain. Apthorpe V. Peter Schoenhofen Brewing and St. Louis
Breweries V. Apthorpe, both taxation cases with substantially identical circumstances, were among the
first. Veil piercing was not limited to corporations with a single ownership. The veil of corporations with
several stockholders was frequently broken by the courts.

Following then, there was a time when the corporate screen hypothesis was quite popular. In
the earlier 20th century, successful veil penetrating rulings included Gilford Motor V. Horne, In re Darby,
Brougham, Trebanog Working Men's Club and Institute, Ltd V. MacDonald, and Rainham Chemical
Works, Ltd. V. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. Because there was no well-defined solution to the theory,
English courts had to rely on existing common law ideas like agency, guardianship, and tort rules to
settle corporate identity difficulties. These attempts attempted to produce a foundation that could be
used by everyone. However, the absence of a standard structure did not stop courts from penetrating
the curtain when the situation demanded it (Cheng-Han, Wang & Hofmann, 2019). This isn't to argue
that litigants have always prevailed. In other cases, the courts have declined to pierce the veil. Despite
this, the corporate veil theory was strong during this time. Professor Kahn-renowned Freund's 1944
paper, in which he described Salomon as a "calamitous" judgment and argued for measures that would
substantially curtail the extent of limited liability, accurately represented the mood of the moment. He
even considered legislating Salomon's abolition.

Smith, Stone, and Knight V. Birmingham, the first effort by an English court to put forth
thorough standards for veil piercing, is the aberration to the paucity of a systems process during this era.
Judge Atkinson pointed out that if a branch may be deemed to be conducting trade on account of its
parent, which would allow veil piercing, is a fact-specific question. Judge Atkinson then continued to
formulate six important considerations for each case: (1) was the holding firm the top and brains of the
marketing endeavour? (2) Were the gains considered as the founder company’s revenues? (3) Was the
parental company at the helm of the trading venture? (4) Did the big company decide what needed to
be done and how much revenue should be put in the company? (5) Did the parent firm benefit from its
knowledge and experience? (6) Was the underlying company regulated in a consistent and effective
manner? According to Nyombi (2014), these responses are almost comparable to those given in US
judges.

In reality, these requirements and the eleven situations described by Frederick Powell as
suggesting that a business is a simple instrumentality has a lot in common. Notwithstanding their broad
breadth, these standards have been widely ignored in future instances in the United Kingdom. One
reason for this is because English courts have tended to use conventional common law notions when
implementing the corporate veil theory. In the perspective of English courts, this effort at a complete list
of veil piercing requirements arguably represented judicial activism. One factor might be the case's
peculiar facts, which entailed the parent firm arguing for its curtain to be penetrated in attempt to get
money from the government (Cheng-Han, Wang & Hofmann, 2019). Following Smith, Stone, and Knight,
future courts were able to separate their cases from Smith, Stone, and Knight's, and decline to adopt
their method. After World War II, the English corporate veil concept reached its pinnacle. In Re FG
(Films), Jones V. Lipman, Firestone Tyre and Rubber V. Lewellin, and Merchandise Transport V. British
Transport Commission were all significant veil penetrating cases during this time frame.

Lord Denning was responsible for a large part of the doctrine's vitality, as previously stated.
Between the 1950s and 1970s, he was involved in a slew of business veil instances, including Scottish
Cooperative Wholesale Society V. Meyer, Littlewoods Mail Order Stores V. Inland Revenue
Commissioners, Wallersteiner V. Moir, and, finally, D.H.N. Food Distributors Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets
London Borough Council, the greatest well of all of them and. "The teaching put forth in Salomon V.
Salomon & Co. [1897] A.C. 22 needs to be examined very carefully," he wrote in Littlewoods, cautioning
against mindlessly following Salomon: "The doctrine brought forth in Salomon V. Salomon & Co. [1897]
A.C. 22 needs to be studied very carefully." It has always been thought that it casts a veil so over nature
of a controlled corporation that courts can see through. That is not the situation, though. The judiciary
have the ability to pull the curtain aside, which they routinely do. They have the option of removing the
visage, which they commonly do (Saxena, 2010). They're looking behind them to see what's actually
going on. With financial deepening and other things, the senate has led the way. The courts must do the
same. Lord Denning's demand for more judicial discretion when it comes to character of the company is
admirable. Nevertheless, there is a distinction to be made between forcing group firms to disclose their
finances on an aggregated footing and dissolving group corporations for legal reasons (thus disregarding
their independent legal identities).

Economic statements are primarily for informative objectives, and accounts aggregation may
have been mandated by the legislation for causes unknown to restricted liability. However, Lord
Denning's appeal for judicial discretion in dealing with corporations would lead to his widely panned
ruling in D.H.N. In 1956, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lee V. Sheard, which was not a
business curtain piercing case. Lord Denning anticipated his thinking in D.H.N. by comparing a
shareholder's connection with his firm to partnerships. In D.H.N, a majority English Court of Appeal
permitted a parent firm to sue underneath the Land Compensation Act for business disruption. Despite
the fact that the company and the property it resided on were held by separate organizations "This case
may be named the 'Three in One,'" Lord Denning said in his renowned verdict. Three businesses in one,
instead, there's the 'One in three' theory. Saxena (2010) noted that three firms in one group." "[t]his
group is substantially the equivalent as a partnership whereby all 3 enterprises are partners," Lord
Denning continued to outline the particular financial unit idea. They must not be regarded differently in
order to destroy them on a technicality."

Previous to Prest, Adams v Cape Industries was the landmark decision in the domain of piercing
the corporate veil, in which the Court of Appeal took into account – and ultimately denied – three
assertions to get around the Salomon principle and break the corporate veil of the American subsidiary
that had caused serious damage by developing toxic materials. These were the headings: – Agency –
Single economic unit – Corporate veil piercing under the "fraud exception" They made their way into
textbooks and practice. Prest's piercing the veil concept is only engaged with the final category,
restating the earlier "fraud exception" by creating the "evasion principle," therefore affirming certain
instances (Jones v Lipman; Gilford v Horne) while dismissing rest (Trustor; Gencor) (Spellenberg, 2013).

The plaintiff asbestos victims in Adams were unable to execute their judgments against the
England holding company of an American company, which had been closed down by the parent as
portion of a sophisticated strategy to avoid accountability, due to the court's reluctance to breach the
veil. Regrettably for the asbestos victims in that instance, Adams widely accepted that the integrity of
company law regulations supersedes the judicial function in preventing unfairness under the English
corporate curtain concept. In fact, Spellenberg (2013) elaborated that the English courts place such a
premium on the idea of agency that judges sometimes find it absurd to accept alternative categories.
Respondent Sansom, who had given a loan to his firm, was a director of a so-called one-man corporation
in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Sansom. A complaint was made against him that he was just using
his firm to avoid paying taxes.

Surprisingly, English courts simply analyzed the agency notion without taking into account the
taxation policy. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that ignoring the company's
independent identity would have amounted to the shareholders making a debt to him, which would be
absurd (Tan, Wang & Hofmann, 2018). In fact, after the Adams judgment, the English Judiciary's door to
a claimant bringing a veil piercing suit was virtually completely shut.

"Modern English law has rejected the inflated view of Salomon's case... English law is now
willing to permit qualifiers of, and exemptions to, this rule, by removing the curtain of corporations," a
notable critic remarked that year. The corporation veil theory was at its pinnacle in that year. Following
this, the English court became more hostile to the concept, proving that the confidence was misguided.
The House of Lords publicly challenged the logic in D.H.N. two years later. Woolfson V. Strathclyde
Regional Council, Woolfson V. Strathclyde Regional Council, Woolfson V. Strathclyde Regional Council,
Woolf "If the Court of Appeal correctly used the concept that it is acceptable to pierce the corporate veil
only if unique conditions arise showing that it is a mere façade masking the underlying facts," Lord Keith
of Kinkel questioned (Saxena, 2010). Woolfson marked the beginnings of the doctrine's demise. Despite
Lord Keith's refusal to overrule D.H.N., later cases showed that the same industrial unit concept and the
corporation veil concept were losing popularity.

The English Court of Appeal clearly dismissed the particular financial entity reasoning in Bank of
Tokyo V. Karoon, emphasizing that "we are concerned not with economy but with law." The difference
between the two is crucial in law and can be obfuscated here." In Adams V. Cape Industries plc, the
English Court of Appeal decided that the employment of company form to restrict future obligations is
an intrinsic component of corporate law, thereby ruling out veil penetrating in tort suits. It hasn't all
been gloomy and despair for litigants seeking to pierce the curtain since Adams (Cheng-Han, Wang &
Hofmann, 2019). Two years later, in Creasey V. Breachwood Motors Ltd., the court broke the veil
separating two firms after their shared owners moved the first corporate resources to the other to
escape an approaching judgment. After expressly approving the rationale in Creasey, the Admiralty
Court disallowed the sale of a ship by one part of a business body to another five years later, in a case
containing very identical facts. However, in Ord & Anor V. Belhaven Pubs, Creasey was overturned.
 The present position of the English corporation curtain theory is aptly summarized by a notable
analyst, who stated: "Once one travels outside the sphere of specific treaties or legislation, the concept
of piercing the curtain has a minor role in British company law." Even if the evidence for applying the
principle appears strong, such as in the situation of a small, undercapitalized business which might or
might not be member of a bigger corporation, the courts are reluctant to do so. According to some, veil
violation has considered an uncommon occurrence within English law, after elevated decisions in the
1990s that came out strongly against by the idea. Nonetheless, two recent examples imply that attitudes
against veil piercing may be changing (Tan, Wang & Hofmann, 2018). The English Court of Appeal broke
the curtain between the parent firm and its subsidiaries in Beckett Investment Management Group V.
Hall to give effect to a promise not to interfere in an employer. A series of expressions in Lord Justice
Kay's opinion, which will be explored below, highlight the importance of this issue for the corporation
curtain concept. Similarly, in Stone & Rolls V. Moore Stephens, a company's single owner and chairman
put up a deceptive plan that its evaluation of financial firms failed to detect, and fleeced large amounts
of money from various institutions.

After the business fell into insolvency, the liquidator filed medical malpractice charges against
the accountants. The question was whether the corporation's objectives should be imputed to the
responsible shareholder, preventing the firm from continuing its complaints against the auditors. The
majority of congress of Lords disregarded the company's independent legal existence and blamed it for
the shareholder's dishonest intents. As a result, the company's allegations against the auditors were
dismissed. The English corporation veil doctrine's fate is uncertain. Beckett and Moore Stephens may
herald a change in the doctrine's fortunes. While Adams cast question on the doctrine's application to
tort claims, Beckett confirmed the doctrine's validity in economic issues (Nyombi, 2014). Moore
Stephens may also suggest an English court readiness to break the corporate veil in cases involving
deceptive solitary businesses. A more rigorous conceptual model than that which now exists in legal
precedent is required for the doctrine's revival. This Essay will first make a comparison examination of
the corporation veil theory on the both sides of the Ocean before presenting such a structure.

SALOMON PRINCIPLE
The Limited Liability Act of 1855 is credited with establishing legal capacity. However, there
were other flaws, such as the fact that businesses could only be founded by royal charter or Acts of
Parliament. Corporations might be founded over time by the membership of members and the
recording of details in a central register. These amendments made it simpler for individuals to form
firms, but numerous courts rejected cases, claiming that people were just establishing their enterprises
to escape future debts. It wasn't till the seminal case of Salomon V. A. that it became clear. A.C. Salomon
and Company [1897] that the notion of limited by guarantee became a foundational principle in
corporate law (Kakubo, 2011).

Salomon conducted a sole proprietorship boot producing firm, according to the evidence stated
in the given case. His firm began to struggle as a consequence of the weak economic, so he formed
Salomon Ltd; a corporation made up about himself and his family, and surrendered his single
proprietorship to the corporation for £39,000. The firm kept £20,000 of the £39,000 and instead
awarded Mr. Salomon 20,001 shares in the firm out of a total of 20,007 (nominal value of £1 per share).
Salomon's family relatives controlled the other 6 shares. Mr. Salomon was also given a ten thousand
pound movable unsecured debenture.
 Mr. Salomon's company, which he led as managing director, struggled to stay afloat and
eventually went bankrupt. As a result, Mr. Salomon sought to preserve the company by trading his
debentures to a Mr. Edmund for £5,000 and then loaned the money to the company at a ten percent
interest rate. Despite Salomon's attempts, the firm was forced to liquidate. The firm was worth £6,000
at the time. Mr. Edmund (£5,000) was a secured creditor, and this sum was sufficient to repay him off
(Nsubuga, 2020). Mr. Salomon, on the other hand, planned to use his equity stake in the debt securities
to collect the remaining £1,000, arguing that he'd be recognized as a creditor and repaid before of the
company's debt holders. Unsecured creditors claimed that Mr. Salomon and the corporation were one
and same man, and that as a consequence, Salomon must not be given precedence over them. As a
result, the question emerged as to if Mr. Salomon, who was Salomon Ltd's largest shareholder, would be
individually accountable for the company's debts to unsecured creditors.

Salmon had constituted the company in violation of the Companies Act of 1862, and both the
High Court and the Court of Appeal declared it a fraud. Furthermore, the judge found that Mr.
Salomon's company, Salomon Ltd, was Mr. Salomon's agency, and that Mr. Salomon should be punished
liable for the corporation’s debts acquired during its operation. On challenge to the House of Lords, the
High Court and Court of Appeal rulings were overturned. Dignam and Oh, (2019) expressed that the
House of Lords held that if a firm is formally and lawfully created, it should be recognized as an
autonomous person in the eyes of the laws. As a consequence of the decision, the "corporate veil"
between the business and its stakeholders was developed when Mr. Salomon wasn't really personally
responsible for the company's responsibilities. The formation or development of so "corporate veil" is
what makes this situation so important. When the House of Lords established the corporation entity, it
constructed a barrier between the company's (distinct legal identity, as noted above) and the
owners'/shareholders' identities.

The result in the Salomon has been confirmed in a number of high-profile cases in the past,
including Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619. Kakubo (2011) highlighted that when
judges see the firm and its corporation (owners, directors, and shareholders) as a single entity,
exemptions to the notion of limited liability occur. "Piercing the corporate veil" or "lifting the corporate
veil" are terms used to describe this. When the case is "lifted" or "pierced," the Company's Directors are
held accountable for the company's obligations. This implies that the officer's own assets may be put at
danger in order to pay off the company's obligations.

In the below circumstances, the corporate structure can be removed or breached. Wrongful
trading - wrongful trading occurs when a director knows and should have fairly understood that the firm
is bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy and fails to take all necessary steps to limit creditor damages;
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2002] UKHL 43 exemplifies the how
judges evaluate fraud in terms of the veil of incorporation and restricted responsibility. Nsubuga (2020)
emphasized that the courts ruled in this instance that no one can pretend to have perpetrated a felony
on account of others (in this example, a firm with independent legal personality) in order to evade
personal liability for the dishonest activities; Avoidance of legal responsibility - This concept states that
the business curtain will not shield directors/shareholders who have lawful claims against them which
are distinct from the business and seek to evade individual culpability by relying on the firm's different
legal identity. In the matter of Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest, the top court made this decision (2013); A
corporation can serve as an administrator if its membership, i.e. directors/shareholders, provide their
permission. Individual members are obligated by the company's (agent) activities in such instances, as
long as those actions are within the extent of power. As a consequence, the director/shareholders could
be directly liable for the activities of the agency firm. In addition Kakubo (2011) noted that with
consideration to corporate responsibility, directors may be deemed personally accountable for
violations committed independently or on behalf of the corporation if they allow the entity to act
beyond its jurisdiction. Furthermore, directors may be held personally accountable if the corporation is
used to commit fraud.

After identifying what limited culpability and veil trying to lift are, their chronological
fundamentals, how they are formed, i.e. the veil of inclusion and distinct legal character, and their
exclusions, we will look at the benefits and drawbacks of limited liability that would start providing
rationale for English courts trying to balance the benefits and drawbacks.

Advantages:
There is certain reasoning for the aforementioned principles as follows:

1. Personal liability is reduced – this is the most prevalent and evident benefit of having a separate
legal identity and restricted liability. It's possible that it's the primary motivation for people to form
businesses. When a body corporate is formed, as previously said. This implies that if the firm falls into
economic difficulties, the directors' and shareholders' bank balance will not be utilised to wipe off the
firm's obligations, limiting their culpability (Nsubuga, 2020).

2. Shareholders might be restricted by the number of shares they own or by a commitment. When
a shareholder's obligation is restricted by stocks, the price they bought or are obligated to spend for the
equity capital they possess is the maximum. Members, rather than shareholders, make up a limited-by-
guarantee corporation. In the event that the firm gets into economic difficulties and needs to settle its
obligations, these individuals are usually obliged to pay an amount they have already committed to
spend. The sum insured by subscribers is usually £1 (Dignam & Oh, 2019).

3. Limited corporations incur lower corporate tax than lone dealers who pay standard or higher
rate income tax, resulting in a more efficient tax approach. Limited enterprises now pay a set 19 percent
corporation tax. Additionally, when it comes to income policy, a restricted corporation provides far more
freedom. Limited company owners can reinvest excess money into the firm to cover future fees and
expenses. This implies that shareholders will take out fewer payments and spend less personal income
tax, while also ensuring that the company is fluid enough to weather any potential economic troubles
(Ireland, 2010).

4. Good security for your corporation - while forming a business, the proprietors must pick a name.
This identity must be unique and can be the same identical to that of another current firm, which is a
restriction, but it also, cannot be used or filed by another company. Sole merchants do not have access
to this type of security.

5. provides a better identity for your company - registration will give your company a more official
picture, which automatically contributes more honesty and respect. Moreover, because some
organizations, particularly those in the IT and financial industries, will only do work with company law,
this greater honesty may open multiple doors and boost revenue.
Disadvantages:
While there are certain benefits for incorporation of the doctrine, there are also detrimental impacts as
follows:

1. provides a more good identity for your company - registration will give your company a more
official picture, which automatically contributes more honesty and respect. Moreover, because some
organizations, particularly those in the IT and financial industries, will only do work with company law,
this greater honesty may open multiple doors and boost revenue.

2. Limited businesses are less discreet since they must be listed with Companies House and must
spend an establishment charge, which is an additional drawback (Dignam & Oh, 2019). When a business
is formed, all of its private and business information becomes when extracting cash, submitting tax
returns, yearly accounts, and preserving records such as minutes of all meeting and documenting the
conclusions reached by directors and shareholders, an established firm must follow tight requirements.

IN SUMMARY: LIMITED LIABILITY IS A PRODUCT OF SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONNEL LIMITED

LIABILITY IS A PRODUCT OF SEPARATE Individual PER A firm's independent legal identity is developed
and distinguished from the personalities of its individual officials. Long before the decision of Salomon v
Salomon, the historical roots of limited liability exist publicly data (Ireland, 2010).

While the Salomon decision strengthens the notion of limited liability, it, like every legal
construct, is vulnerable to anomalies. The term "lifting" or "piercing" the veil of incorporation refers to
certain instances.

The benefits of restricted liability are obvious, but there are also drawbacks, as previously
stated. As a result, it is up to each person to determine to choose if or not incorporated their company
depending on their own needs (Kakubo, 2011).

Current law
According to Udemezue (2020), in Salomon's instance, the concept is subject to a number of
limitations. Most importantly, legislation may mandate that the corporation not be considered as an
independent legal entity, either explicitly or implicitly. Section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 mandates
that companies directors make a contribution to the payments of financial liability in the event of a
liquidation process if they allowed the firm to continue accumulating debt when they should have
known there was no reasonable possibility of escaping bankruptcy.

Under a recent ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that UK regulations allows a claimant to
disregard a corporation's distinct legal personality and "pierce the corporate veil" in certain situations.
This is, nevertheless, a one-of-a-kind cure. This is the first time the country's top court has recognized
the existence of an English law concept that allows courts to pierce the corporate veil. This concept
applies only in extremely specific circumstances, such as "where a person is liable to an established legal
duty or responsibility, or to an established regulatory limitation, which he intentionally avoids or whose
enforcement he actively delays by interposing a corporation under his control" (Chan, 2014). The law
can then raise the veil in denying the corporation or its director the benefit that would have accrued if
the firm had its own legal personality. The majority of the legislatures put forward the view that this was
as far as it is willing to proceed in drifting apart from the set precedence of a corporation being treated
as an independent legal entity.

In Prest, Lord Sumption provided a clarification for the notion following:

1. In Saloman V. Saloman, the expression "piercing the corporate veil" refers to the dismissal of a
corporation's distinct identity, which happens when the court applies an exception to the norm
(Udemezue, 2020).

2. The idea differs from a scenario in which the legislation imputes a company's decision to the persons
who manage it, while ignoring the company's separate legal personality.

3. Lord Sumption suggested two circumstances in which a person in charge of a firm may be held
accountable for some type of malfeasance:

a. Lord Sumption's "concealment principle," which he thought did not need breaching the corporate
barrier, is the earliest. The true principles of a transaction are obscured when a company or companies
are participating in a company. In other words, the participants are seeking to conceal their activities
under a "façade." Chan, (2014) highlighted that in such cases, the Court doesn't really disregard a
company's legal independence, but instead reveals the true realities that the firm's design was designed
to conceal.

b. The next concept is known as the "evasion principle." The Court may ignore the firm's legal character
if there is a legitimately claim in opposition by the participant in influence of the corporation and the
company is purposely described as the difference in sequence for the separate judicial corporate image
to pacify the regulatory of that correct against the regulating speaker. The court may then violate the
organizational body, but only to deprive the company or its manager the advantage that the company's
autonomous legal identity would have supplied (Alanazi, 2020).

Lord Sumption's and Lord Neuberger's ideas were not universally embraced by the other five
members of the Court, thus this finding confirms a minority position. The most of the Court
representatives were hesitant to specify the doctrine's reach at all, with Lord Mance remarking that it is
"frequently perilous to strive to preclude all potential future scenarios which may emerge," and that he
"would not like to do so." Nevertheless, the foregoing principles represent the most recent
pronouncement from England and Wales' highest court about when a court can pierce the corporation
veil, and they are likely to be extremely convincing in future instances (Sokratous, 2017).

Given the restricted reach of the theory after Prest, it's hardly unexpected that there have been
few instances using the idea of penetrating the corporate veil. Given the severe requirements provided
down in Prest, courts are now extremely reluctant of attempting to breach the veil, according to the
authors' personal experience. They are more willing to employ alternative legal frameworks, such as
agency law and trusteeship principles, since they know these weapons do not constitute an invasion on
the corporation facade. For civil litigators the landmark precedence is set by Mrs Justice Rose in the case
of Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Company Limited [2013] EWHC 3530, which
included the development of land. Rose J, in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, used both the concealment
and evasion rules to preclude D2 and D3 from hiding behind D1. In terms of the initial acquisition, it
should be shown that D2 and D3 breached their fiduciary responsibility by attempting to steer the farm
development potential to another firm (Chan, 2014). The law would not enable D2 and D3 to disguise
their acts behind D1's actions because of the concealing concept.

After defining the applicable standard, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded with the High
Court Judge that piercing the corporate veil on the facts of this case was not admissible. Mr Prest had
not been found guilty of any relevant misconduct by the judge in the first hearing. Mr Prest was not
hiding or dodging any legal responsibility due to his wife, despite the fact that he had acted wrongly in
numerous respects. It was especially significant because the legal ownership to the houses had been
transferred to the Corporations before the marriage ended. It could not be alleged that Mr Prest was
using the Companies to avoid paying his wife the divorce settlement. The judiciary yet decided that even
though legally the company owned the properties, the husband beneficially owned them hence
incurring the possibility of being transferred to the wife (Alanazi, 2020).

The Supreme Court collectively reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Lord Sumption
delivered the main opinion, observing that the legislation pertaining to when authorities might pierce
the corporate veil was marked by "insufficient rationale."  Sokratous (2017) expressed that despite this
ambiguity in the law, Lord Sumption stated that the approach indicated in Adams v Cape Industries is
that veil piercing needed some deception on the part of the business member and was not merely a
mechanism that could be used to guarantee fairness in a specific situation. His house of lords further
concluded that this concept had been reinforced in Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2), in which it was
further determined that the dishonesty must entail the incorporation of company law as a charade or
sham to conceal genuine property ownership.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in its recent ruling in La Générale des Carrières et
des Mines v F G Hemisphere Associates LLC [2012] UKPC 27, was likely to undertake that the
complainant was correct in asserting that a judiciary in this authority could pierce the corporate veil, but
it should be mentioned that this was not contested by the respondent (Ireland, 2010).

It is illustrated in Adams v Cape Industries Plc. that the English Court is unwilling to pierce the
corporate veil even to avoid injustice. The UK judiciary's position in this matter is that it is not "open to
this court to violate the principle of Salomon v. A Salomon & Co Ltd just because it believes it just to do
so.”

Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a case involving different legal personalities and
restricted responsibility for shareholders in the United Kingdom. The decision also examined lengthy
difficulties under British conflict of laws, such as when a firm is resident in a foreign jurisdiction and the
English courts acknowledge the foreign court's authority over it. It was effectively supplanted by
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which concluded that a parent firm might be held accountable for a
subsidiary's activities under conventional tort law grounds (Ireland, 2010).

Following the decision, Legal system has proposed that a jury can only raise the corporate veil
when conceptualizing a constitutional provision, agreement, or other document; if a company is a "mere
façade" obscuring the factual information; or when a subsidiary company was acting as an authorised
agent of its parent, and not just because "justice requires" or to consider a group of companies as a
single economic unit. Alanazi, (2020) mentioned that the House of Lords stated that in the instance of
tort victims, a remedy could be possible. Lord Bingham decided in Lubbe v Cape that the challenge of
showing a duty of care owed between a parent firm and the tort plaintiffs of a subsidiary would be
resolved simply by applying conventional negligence law standards, such as whether the injury was
reasonably foreseeable.

The veil of incorporation was not important in tort actions, according to Chandler v Cape plc,
thereby avoiding Adams. "In addition, there are other instances, notably Adams v Cape Industries plc
[1990] Ch 433, where the concept was ruled to exist (although that they incorporate obiter statements
and are otherwise not binding in this court," Lord Neuberger wrote in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek
International Corp (Chan, 2014).

Prest respects the concept expressed in Saloman V. Saloman, which states that assets
maintained under business entities are not regarded to be the ownership of the corporation's manager
unless the evasive concept may be used (Udemezue, 2020). The Prest ruling, on the other hand,
demonstrates that a judiciary has additional instruments at its disposal when it wants to guarantee that
a violator is unable to conceal behind a company's independent legal identity. The Corporations
concluded that the UK assets are on trust for Mr Prest, according to the Court in Prest. Lord Sumption
came to this judgment after seeing that most of the Corporations were not continuously dealing, that
the Corporations could not have supported the acquisition of the properties they possessed, and that
ownership was not related to oil trading activity.

Whilst it is hard to foresee when a court may attempt to look past a corporation's autonomous
legal identity, Prest demonstrates that it is more apt to occur when a judge feels the idea has been
exploited. Mr. Prest was operating his own firm and using the companies under his control as his
personal wealth bunker. The lawful use of corporate entities for asset structuring and risk and liability
allocation, on the other hand, should be unaffected by the judgment (Sokratous, 2017).

Lord Clarke agreed held a similar view forwarding that Munby J was correct in Ben Hashem v Al
Shayif, that the veil could only be breached when all other options had been explored. Furthermore, as
he stated in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp, it is incorrect to rule out all prospective
piercing opportunities. Insofar as VTB invokes the concept of piercing the corporate veil, its case
includes what, at most, might be described as an expansion of the conditions in which the corporate veil
has historically been penetrated. It is an extension because it would make the individual responsible of
the firm accountable as if he had been a co-contracting person with the business in question to an
agreement to which he was not a party. to summarize, apart from almost every other particular instance
in which the judge has pierced the veil of incorporation, Regardless of the reality which neither Mr
Malofeev nor any of the contractual parties wanted Mr Malofeev to be a participant, VTB maintains that
Mr Malofeev must be treated it's like he's, or had been, a founder entity with RAP underneath the two
contracts (Alanazi, 2020).

The idea that the doctrine can be applied in such a particular circumstance is unsupported by
any authority, with the exception of Burton J's court judgment in Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation
v Stepanovs [2011], Lloyd's Rep 647 (which he preceded in his later decision in Alliance Bank JSC v
Aquanta Corporation [2011], Lloyd's Rep 181, which was regarded by the Court of Appeal in 2012. None
of the other cases depended on by VTB in this instance are, on closer examination, helpful to its case.

The case does, nevertheless, demonstrate that if people wish to safeguard their assets against
claims, they must be cautious regarding the arrangement of their businesses and exert control over
firms. In preparation to comply with an unlawful attempt to conceal behind a corporate entity, the
courts might be creative in establishing a basis to overlook the independent legal personality of the
business (Chan, 2014).

DENNING VIEW
The much-maligned single financial entity idea, which was first presented by Lord Denning, is
making a comeback. This ground-breaking viewpoint will enable a more logical concept of corporate veil
piercing cases. Regrettably, the judiciary's has not been majorly favorable to this view. Until the late
1970s, judicial systems were known for being willing to pierce the veil when justice necessitated it. Lord
Denning is most credited with inventing the single economic unit hypothesis, which allows a court to
consider a company's parent and completely funded subsidiaries as a single entity, a concept that would
be considered expansive. Mucha, (2017) emphasized that the English corporate veil hypothesis has been
plagued by the lack of a comprehensive conceptual framework, which has contributed to the
judiciary’s lukewarm indications. The apparent haphazardness of legal precedent may account for some
of the legislative opposition to breaking the veil. One well-known English company law specialist termed
the notion "palm-tree justice." Instead of depending on old precedent to resolve corporate veil issues,
English courts still seek the adoption of an organized strategy to the conflicts.

Regardless of the relevance of this distinction, the judicial system has always been preoccupied
with the protection provided by limited liability, which must be restricted in order to ensure that
business operations are carried out evenly. An unrestricted market is based not only on the operation of
limited liability firms (enabling people to concur further monetary risks that otherwise they would not
have taken), but also on a necessary standard of justice in transactions. Denning LJ noted this in his
remarks at page 712 of Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702: “No court in this land will allow a
person to keep an advantage which he had obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a
Minister, can be allowed to stand it if has been obtained by fraud (Enwukwe, 2020). Fraud unravels
everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is
proved, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever...”

Where authorities are unwilling to completely ignore the curtain, a practice known as red lifting,
they use the method of creating an agency link. Lord Denning's decision in Wallersteiner is a good
example: after conceding that Dr. Wallersteiner's financial accounts were represented by numerous
legal entities, he added, "Even so, I am very convinced that they were essentially Dr. Wallersteiner's
puppets." He had perfect control over their every move. Each performed pertaining to his or her desires.
He wielded the greatest amount of control. No one else could come near to them. They were his
operators, to use legal lingo, who carried out his directives. He was the genius behind all of them
(Vandekerckhove, 2007).

It's interesting observing how Lord Denning shifts from remarking that the companies "were just
the puppets," i.e., had no separate entity, to later admitting that "they were his agents." Furthermore,
the veil is pulled back to disclose the true relationship shared by the majority owner and the businesses,
and the veil is breached in the sense of an agency agreement, making the majority owner accountable
for the activities of the company (Schall, 2016). A further method for seeing behind the curtain is to
have a business mirror a partnership and evaluate the close bond between partners and shareholders.
Lord Halsbury famously stated in the Daimler case, "...what is this thing which is described as a
"corporation"?" In actuality, it is a cooperation in all aspects save the names and, in certain ways, the
position of those who will be referred to as the managing partners.

The case of DHN Food Distributors Ltd. V. London Borough of Tower Hamlets exemplifies the
notion. In this authority, a business claimed compensation for the inconvenience caused by property
expropriation (Tham, 2007). The property, on the other hand, belonged to a third company, whose
owners were comparable to those of the other two. Lord Denning agreed with Gower's aphorism on the
tendency to disregard the corporate structures of individual enterprises within a group in favor of the
broader economic composition of the group. He emphasized that this is especially true when a parent
company owns all of the subsidiary's stock. These subsidiaries are accountable to the parent firm and
are required to carry out the parent company's commands. For the present, the three companies should
be regarded as a single entity.

Lord Denning's call for lot of consideration in flexibility in organizational personality cases is
excellent. It is critical to distinguish between requiring group enterprises to publish their records on a
complete structure and dissolving group organizations for liability concerns (thereby ignoring their
separate legal personality) (Vandekerckhove, 2007). Financial data is displayed solely for educational
purposes, as required by law. Account consolidation for non-restricted legal purposes. Nevertheless,
Lord Denning's plea for courts freedom in handling with corporations would result in his widely derided
decision in D.H.N.

Lord Denning foreshadowed his reasoning in D.H.N. by equating a shareholder's relationship

with his corporation to a cooperation. While the corporation and the premises on which it located were
owned by separate corporate organizations, a unanimous British Court of Appeal in D.H.N. allowed a
parent corporation to seek reparation for inconvenience under the Land Compensation Act. Lord
Denning remarked in his landmark judgment, "This case may be termed the 'Three in One.'" Three
companies in one. There's also the 'one in three' hypothesis. They should not be interpreted differently
in order to defeat them on a technicality." "Modern corporate law has rejected the exaggerated
interpretation of Salomon's case... "By dropping the veil of corporations, English law is now ready to
admit qualifiers and exceptions to this concept," a famous expert commented the same year. In that
year, the corporate veil idea reached its apex. Following this, the English judiciary grew progressively
hostile to the notion, demonstrating that the optimism was misplaced (Schall, 2016).

In perspective of our four categories, it's intriguing to evaluate the legislation's stance in this
disagreement. It proceeded by peeping behind the veil to study the three firms at issue's shareholdings.
It was determined that the stockholders of all three firms were the same (and directors)
(Vandekerckhove, 2007). This is a true piercing of the curtain since each entity's direct role in the
company's resources is acknowledged. Ultimately, it broke through the curtain with the partnership
strategic approach: "the group is effectively the same as a partnership in which all three firms are
partners." The last phase is to pull back the curtain on the individuals of the group, permitting to be
viewed as single, coherent entity: 'These corporations as a group are entitled to compensation not just
for the value of the property, but also for disruption.'

'They should not be treated separately so as to be defeated on a technical point,' Lord Denning
MR says emphatically. They should not be refused the payment they are owed for the difficulty they
have incurred (Mucha, 2017). 'If each member of the group is recognized as a separate entity, nobody
could have claimed compensation in a situation that clearly calls for it,' Shaw adds. L.J. As previously
noted, Lord Denning was responsible for a significant element of the notion's life. In the years of 1950s
and 1970s, he was associated with several organization veil cases, including Scottish Cooperative
Wholesale Society V. Meyer, Littlewoods Mail Order Stores V. Inland Revenue Commissioners,
Wallersteiner V. Moir, and, finally, the landmark authority of D.H.N. Food Distributors Ltd. V. Tower
Hamlets London Borough Council. His enthusiasm for the notion was best shown in his judgment in
Littlewoods, when he advised against mindlessly adopting Salomon: "The principle set held in Salomon
V. Salomon & Co. [1897] A.C. 22 must be further examined thoroughly." It has long been thought that it
forms a cloud over the personality of a limited corporation that the authorities cannot see through.
Nevertheless, such is not the case because judicial legislatures may and frequently do remove the
curtain in order to uncover the complete truth behind it. Lord Denning's flexible viewpoint, while
advantageous, does not mesh well with English courts, as has been often noted (Enwukwe, 2020).

UNCERTAINTY OF LAW
The Supreme Court of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 considers whether, and if
so, how, the judiciary is empowered to lift the corporate veil in the absence of clear legislative
authorization. Lord Sumption gives more insight on the notion of misuse of corporate identity under
English law in this case. First and primarily, he distinguishes between evasive and hidden scenarios. The
first covers a circumstance in which the individual establishes the firm in order to evade the earlier duty
imposed on whomsoever it may concern. According to Saxena (2010), the latter happens when the
identities of the important "actual players" is concealed by the corporate veil. Only avoidance, according
to Lord Sumption, may justify the use of the penetrating the corporate veil concept. In order to   seeks
to discover the justification for the inclusion of the avoidance and concealment criterion, which appears
to be a limitation of the breaching the corporation concept to the extent where it will have no
implication in future instances.

Lord Sumption, on the other hand, claimed that the phrases "sham" and "facade" should be
substituted with "evasion" and "concealment." Where accountability has been concealed, he said, there
would be no mandatory requirement to breach the corporate veil since, as Lord Neuberger
acknowledged, all that is necessary is to examine behind the veil to determine the genuine players. Lord
Sumption claimed that Lord Neuberger took this stance in VTB, but held that because the court in the
circumstance did not need to lift the corporate veil, it could not be used as precedent in Prest. Nsubuga
(2020) highlighted that the Prest decision explained that breaching the veil would only be allowed when
legal regulations of a company was incorporated to evade liability, while this is not sufficient, and that
even where certain evidence of wrongdoing had originated, it would typically be viable to award a relief
by applying a further aspect of the legislation, in this scenario trust fundamentals were applied to secure
Mrs Prest was authorized to a beneficial interest in the properties. Prest thus demonstrated that, while
the corporate veil may be penetrated in some cases, it is unclear what those situations are outside the
notion that the relief is only a final option, and as such, it appears that the judgment refused to address
benefit of the chance to clarify the legislation.

The contrast between avoidance and concealment is much more difficult to grasp and defend.
The questionable character of it can already be apparent in Lord Neuberger's judgement, which
contested the assumption that both the Jones and Gilford verdicts were evasion situations, despite the
fact that he identified the difference as it is (Vandekerckhove, 2007). Furthermore, Schall correctly notes
that in both the Trustor and Gencor instances, which Lord Sumption cites as exemplifications of the
concealing issue, there is de facto avoidance of the earlier fiduciary responsibilities, specifically "the
responsibility not to accomplish the illicit transactions."

The biggest criticism levelled at this difference is the absence of any established basis for
establishing it. Lord Sumption, in his judgment, based the evasion side of the difference primarily on the
presence of a duty or constraint that an individual wishes to avoid by using a business structure.
Concealment differs from evading in that the latter only addresses the right scenario for penetrating the
veil. Nevertheless, supposing the reasonableness of an individual (natural or juridical) who means to
disguise some details by utilizing a business structure, it would be meaningless for her to do so but for
the presence of some responsibilities or limits, the breach of which inevitably leads to his or her
culpability (Ireland, 2010). As a consequence, the contrast between concealment and obfuscation
effectively distinguishes escape from other scenarios where more conventional alternatives permitting
the court to recognize the ownership with the business are available.

Some observers have stated that the Prest ruling should be "welcomed" because, while it
confirms that the Salomon doctrine is a fundamental of UK company law, it also acknowledges that
under exceptional circumstances, as aforementioned, which the curtain can be broken in order to offer
a redress. This author, on the other hand, finds such a viewpoint difficult to comprehend. While the
scenario makes it clear that veil incision will only be acceptable where there has been avoidance of
debts and no other legal relief will provide an effective solution, as shown above, the judgment provides
no evidence of precisely the situations in which the veil may still be pierced, hence the ruling should be
viewed only as adding to the uncertainties surrounding this aspect of the law. Indeed, one cynical
observer has suggested that Lord Sumption "almost looked happy" that the veil could not be penetrated
in Prest because it ensured he would not require to define the "definitive" grounds under which the veil
may be pierced in the prospective (Nsubuga, 2020). Leaving aside cynicism, this author believes that,
while Prest has restricted the doctrine by clarifying that it is only to be employed as a last resort, a
future decision will be necessary to confirm specifically when the notion may be applied.

Lord Sumption strives in Prest to limit merely the façade concept to a firmer and more
constrained criterion. Nonetheless, it is difficult to argue that the notion of abusing the company's
unique identity is not a clear improvement over the façade/sham-test in terms of clarity and certainty.
All of Lord Sumption's constraints render the theory of breaching the veil essentially impotent.
Presumably, there is still the opportunity to dismiss the distinct legal entity concept in cases when
concealment occurs, but it is difficult to provide a concrete example of evasion (Ireland, 2010). In
actuality, the evasion principle serves primarily to prevent shareholders from using the piercing notion
to make them accountable for what is a corporation responsibility (i.e., the idea has an inherent hurdle
to 'forward piercing'). It also, at least implicitly, excludes the piercing the veil theory from the legal
setting since establishing new exceptions to the Salomon principle will be more problematic (if at all).

Simultaneously, there is the concealing principle, which is concerned with alternative remedies
that may be presented when the corporation is used to obstruct third parties from exercising their
rights. Lord Sumption said nothing further at this moment (Vandekerckhove, 2007). Lord Sumption did
not further elaborate at this moment. The ambiguity in Lord Sumption's ruling may encourage courts to
use more conventional mechanisms, like those contained in agencies, trust, and torts, in the context of
corporate law.
 This is inclined to consider that there is a threat of undue interference in the manner the
business structure may be used in the corporate world. It's important to note that the corporation's
liability for investors' duties should be limited in the same way that shareholders' liability for the
corporation's defects is. The Prest case has sparked debate among many writers, demonstrating that
practically all incidents of legal personality abuse may be resolved via more traditional procedures. As a
result, Lord Walker was correct when he said that "through the corporate veil" is "only a name [...] to
capture the various instances on which a legal system provides evident exceptions to the concept of a
body corporate's independent juristic identity" (Saxena, 2010). Lord Sumption's goal, it appears, was to
urge authorities to center their conclusions on more traditional remedies instead of appeal to some hazy
ideas by creating the evasion and concealment difference. The issue is that he did it under the guise of
avoidance and secrecy, which was needless.

US LAW COMPARISON
According to Lezcano (2015), the premise that each company is a separate legal person with
rights and duties independent from those of its shareholders, as well as the notion of corporate limited
liability, underpins American corporate law. The precept of company confined legal responsibility has a
tendency to anticipate realistic significance in numerous situations: (i) wherein the agency lacks enough
property to satisfy its duties or to pay a judgment; (ii) wherein an adversary in litigation seeks to acquire
private jurisdiction over a determine primarily based totally at the presence withinside the U.S. of the
subsidiary (or vice versa); (iii) wherein a litigation adversary of a subsidiary seeks data from its determine
via the manner of civil discovery; (iv) wherein an adversary seeks to bind a determine to a judgment in
opposition to a subsidiary; and (v) wherein an adversary seeks to get better punitive damages scaled to
the property of the determine, instead of simply the ones of the subsidiary.

Any of those conditions might also additionally lead an adversary to try to penetrate the
restrained legal responsibility of an agency via a technique regarded as “piercing the company veil”.
Modern American jurisprudence calls for that a plaintiff display 3 factors to pierce the company veil: (1)
loss of unbiased life among the subsidiary and parent, push aside of company formalities, or
immoderate work out of control, (2) abuse of the company shape in pursuit of a fraudulent purpose, and
(3) a causal courting to the plaintiff’s loss (Cheng, 2011). There isn't any uniform regulation on veil
piercing with inside the United States. Federal regulation and the legal guidelines of the extraordinary
states have extraordinary veil-piercing doctrines, and comparable reality styles might also additionally
provide upward thrust to contradictory results.

Notwithstanding these significant distinctions, the Article illustrates that many English
corporation veil decisions follow a comparable objective method to the utilitarian theory under US law.
As a result, it is conceivable to establish an English utilitarian concept that will provide the English
corporate curtain theory coherence and consistency. The article finishes with a reintroduction of Lord
Denning's much-maligned one macroeconomic unit thesis. This new concept will allow for a more
methodical response to corporate veil breaching instances (Levenberg, 2019).

At first look, it appears that the corporate veil principles on both sides of the Ocean are
incompatible. While judges in both nations have claimed the court's responsibility in avoiding corporate
organization abuses—and discussions of limited liability and the corporation veil concept in both
countries frequently begin with Salomon V. Salomon —the English court is notably more cautious.
Cheng (2011) expressed that the US courts, on the other hand, have shown a stronger readiness to act
when the circumstance calls for it. Nevertheless, the discrepancies between these two countries are
more than just variances in plaintiff victory rates. The English and American courts have fundamentally
different views on court ruling, judiciary rights and powers to manufacture current regulatory theories,
the importance accorded to political concerns, and the function of fairness and its possible clash with
theoretical principles.

1. Respect for the Distinct Company Personality Principle in Overall

In General there are many different types of corporate veil instances. The classic corporate veil
case is when the business identity is ignored and the investors are held to account for the company's
liabilities. For both concept of distinct company identity and the principle of limited liability—which
states that a shareholder's culpability for a company's obligations is restricted to the amount of his
stock investor overruled in this situation (Lezcano, 2015). Since veil breaching exposes shareholders
to company debts, such cases are known as stakeholder responsibility cases. Different sorts of
business veil instances exist, in which the single company persona is ignored without imposing
shareholder accountability. A subsidiary, for instance, may well be treated as if it were not a
different legal organization in order for a judge to have power over the holding company or to force
the submission of documentation from a corporation.

An independent corporate identity could be established in order to reclaim profits from theft that
have been placed into a firm. For the goal of assessing the extent of a controlling director's obligations,
the parent and affiliate major corporations may be compacted. These examples have been dubbed
"identification" cases by some observers, whereas others have adopted the more vivid analogy of
"peeping behind the curtain" by others (Christopher, 1984). Although investor responsibility has been
established in the majority of corporation veil instances in the United States, shareholder responsibility
is seldom enforced in English proceedings.

This conversation has two major ramifications. First, unlike its American equivalent, the English
corporate veil concept never focused on imposing investor culpability. Instead, it has taken a far wider
approach, with identifying actions accounting for the majority of English corporate veil proceedings. The
effort to establish apart independent company personalities is what puts an English case within the
corporation veil theory, not the imposition of investor accountability (Farat & Michon, 2008).

Second, efforts to breach the veil of a legitimate firm are exceedingly difficult to succeed under
English law. The Adams court’s judgment to fail to breach the veil was based on the implicit assumption
that the U.S. branch was a legitimate business organization with a full-fledged mesothelioma enterprise
(Cheng, 2011). Even, the House of Lords did breach the veil in the case of Rainham Chemical Works; the
Law Lords' argument was primarily based on common law ideas like employment privileges.

Rainham has also garnered little notice from the courts and pundits since then. However, if certain
components of the theory are fulfilled, US courts have been ready to breach the curtain of a legitimate
business. In terms of jurisprudence, the English application to the corporate veil concept indicates a far
more deferential stance towards restricted responsibility than the American approach.
2. Ancient Conventional Law Ideas Dependence
Apart from their general views toward corporation curtain concept, the applications of the
hypothesis by English and American courts differ in a few crucial ways. While US judges have been ready
to develop new theories such as utilitarian concept and changing self-importance philosophy to examine
business curtain cases, their British counterparts have usually relied on common law principles like as
agency and trust. The court held in Re (FG) Productions that a Uk business created by its American
parent operated as the latter's representation for film documentation purposes (Levenberg, 2019).

3. Beneficiary
The English Court of Appeal described Mr. Salomon as the beneficiary in Broderip V. Salomon,
and his business as "something illegally called into life by him to allow him to do what the laws bans." In
both cases, the court overturned the corporations' independent legal personalities due to the unlawful
objective of formation (Christopher, 1984). Although some US courts have used agency principles to
corporate veil issues, the number of such instances is still minimal. In corporate veil situations, other
legal system ideas are infrequently used. In D.H.N., the English courts made a remarkable endeavour to
develop a new theory.

4. Absence of Overarching Theory

With exception of corporate veil instances in the United States, the English concept does not
have an overarching theory or analytical methodology. Frederick J. Powell initially proposed the
utilitarian thesis in the United States in 1931 (Cheng, 2011). Since then, a number of state courts have
embraced some form of this approach. In English cases, on the other hand, no broad analytical
framework can be recognized, and the English courts have not defined important criteria or factors.
English courts typically divide cases into one of many groups depending on a combination of the legal
ideas utilized and the practical conditions in which the issue arises.

The classifications of agency and trusts are based on the legal ideas used. But at the contrary
side, fraudulent, taxes, and Companies Act proceedings are founded on the nature or constitutional
foundation of the main allegations (Lezcano, 2015). The group company class includes situations in
which the defendant is a company and the plaintiff is trying to establish organization liability on a
corporate unit.

The preceding reasoning might lead you to believe that the American and English methods to
veil piercing are inherently incompatible. This isn't the case at all. Unexpectedly, a number of the
categories in the current English approach have similar problems and characteristics with Powell's U.S.
instrumentality concept.

5. The Role of Policy Considerations

The willingness of the latter to accept and examine the political factors behind the law or legal
rule at question is a third distinction between the US and English judicial orientations to the corporate
veil theory. In matters involving the construction of legislation, US courts have frequently acknowledged
the statute's policy justification. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while evaluating whether to breach
the corporate veil in National Labor Relations Board V. Fullerton Transfer & Storage, regularly
referenced to federal labour rules and concentrated on if there is “a specific attempt to thwart labor law
obligations.”
 In Walkovszky V. Carlton, the court discussed the legislative grounds underlying the New York
Vehicle and Traffic Law's minimal responsibility rules, as well as the necessity for the court to avoid from
second-guessing or overturning it. The federal revenue taxation and bankruptcy regulations are based
on specific policy difficulties, which the courts have acknowledged. Even when no express law was at
issue, US courts took into account fundamental governance. For example, in Swearngin V. Sears
Roebuck & Co., the court supported the trial court's judgment to breach the curtain of a two business
structure intended to frustrate tort suits it against manufacturer (Cheng, 2011).

The English courts, on the other hand, do not give policy concerns the same weight. The
question in Commissioner of Inland Revenue V. Sanson, a taxation issue, was whether the company in
question related to the corporation or the majority investor, which would affect the participant's tax bill.
The English Court of Appeal determined the issue by using agency notions and emphasizing the reality
that the shareholder had given a loan to the corporation, rather than depending on appropriate taxation
regulations (Christopher, 1984).

The English corporate veil principle has a number of jurisprudential aspects that are linked.
There is minimal must to recognize the impact conceptions of fairness and policy issues because of the
structuralist attitude to court judgment and the strong commitment to distinct corporate identity
inherent in Salomon (Levenberg, 2019). This contra of justice and policy eliminates the use of a new
conceptual approach, enabling English courts to depend on conventional common law ideas that were
not designed with corporate veil piercing in view and are inadequately to judging corporate veil matters.

The evolution of the corporate veil theory in the United States differs from that of its English
equivalent and represents the various legal ideologies that prevail in the United States. Common law
principles were used to investigate corporate veil difficulties in the United States at first, but they were
swiftly shown to be inadequate.

Unlike its English equivalent, tradition has permitted courts to concentrate on the most
significant aspects of corporate veil cases. Lezcano (2015) noted that the employment of agency notions
by US courts exemplifies this distinction. In corporate veil cases, American courts have used these
notions in the same way that their English equivalents have. Nonetheless, US courts were quick to
recognize the limits of agency notions. While agency notions may be helpful in negotiated agency
connections explicitly outsourced for by the stakeholders.

The insufficiency of agency principles for addressing corporate veil allegations was also
emphasized by early US writers. Instead of in the classic common law meaning, some US judges use the
word "agent" synonymous with "instrumentality." Classical agency notions have essentially gone into
the background in U.S. corporate veil doctrine, unlike their English counterparts.

Whilst English judges' resistance to creating new legal theories is compatible with their overall
judicial ethos, it's important recalling that common law conceptions were created by jurists in the first
place. They are based on antecedents that are hundreds of years old in certain circumstances (Cheng,
2011). For example, negligence, which is the most common ground for tort liability, was a judicial
process developed theory that was only widely acknowledged in the 19th century. When the necessity
came, English judges did not refuse to develop this new theory in order to address the urgent issues of
the day.
Reformulation of the concept
1. Involuntary Piercing
The single economic entity hypothesis has been discussed hence much under the assumption
that it merely pertains between a corporate parent and its subsidiary companies. Such groupings were
depicted in both a D.H.N. and Beckett. One issue with this limited area of application is that it makes the
theory vulnerable to exploitation. Because they both required consensual piercing, there was no worry
about subversion in those 2 situations (Prentice, 1995). Nevertheless, in the case of involuntary piercing,
a corporate parent seeking to avoid shareholder accountability may do so by merely introducing a
nominal shareholder to the subsidiary. To prevent this, the theory must be changed such that it still
applies in circumstances when the new owners are essentially nominal. To outrun the scope of the
principle, non-corporate parent shareholders must demonstrate meaningful autonomy from the holding
company.

For activating the concept, entire or almost total share ownership is just a required not sufficient
—condition. Only when the corporate parent has direct control over the subsidiary can it be held
accountable for its actions and obligations. Control is a necessity that is in line with monetary
evaluation. Inferences about the corporate parent's lower data expenditures and rich potential
risk abilities, as well as the debate that shareholder liability will not dissuade a corporate parent from
making an investment in its subsidiary, are both based on its direct authority over the subsidiary
(Gakungi, 2011). Without ultimate control, a corporate parent could no longer be the least-cost analyzer
or efficient risk-bearing capacity.

The financial grounds for implementing the notion of the single economic unit will be weakened.
Greater than only the ability to nominate directors is required for control. Only if a corporate parent can
direct a subsidiary's daily activities is it considered to have control over it.   The capacity to elect
directors alone may not be enough for the parent to reduce its expenses and effectively manage its
potential losses to the subsidiary (Prentice, 1995). Furthermore, any corporate parent with 100% or
almost 100% ownership of its subsidiaries has the authority to nominate directors. If simply having the
capacity to nominate directors satisfies as control, the control criterion would be effectively nullified.

Nonetheless, it is still unclear who should have the responsibility of showing or disproving
control. From an evidential standpoint, the corporate parent should bear the burden of proof since it
will have easier access to the material needed to disprove its influence over the subsidiary. Khimji and
Nicholls, (2015) expressed that this can be accomplished by demonstrating that the board of directors
uses independent judgment in the subsidiary's everyday activities or that the company has previously
been conducted in contradiction to the parent's wishes To use the one economic unit argument in an
involuntary piercing action, the plaintiff must first show that the subsidiary has no independent owners,
which produces a presumption of real control by the corporate parent. The parent then bears the onus
of proof in rebutting the inference of control.

The parts of the theory that have been explored so far concern the subsidiary's territorial
integrity, or, to use the phrase of the instrumentality concept, the subsidiary's monetary value. The
single economic unit hypothesis, as a modification of the corporate veil concept, should necessitate
inappropriate action or intention, at least in the case of involuntary piercing (Cheng, 2011). This is
similar to the instrumentality notion's appropriateness criterion.
 Having considerable justification for this approach in Rainham Chemical Works, where
shareholder responsibility was enforced in the absence of propriety for a corporate tort, the weight of
English legal precedent plainly shows that irregularity must be evident before shareholder liability may
be inflicted. As a result, once the corporate parent's control is recognized, the plaintiff's burden of
evidence changes to proving the presence of wrongdoing. Finally, the plaintiff should be required to
create that the parent's wrongful behaviour adds to its loss, in keeping with a previous recommendation
of including a proximate causation criterion in an English instrumentality theory (Khimji & Nicholls,
2015). Once all of these conditions are satisfied, the single economic unit theory is used to hold the
corporate parent liable.

Both backward and lateral piercing should be allowed only under specific conditions. They
should be permitted only if there is proof of asset stripping to avoid responsibility. The case of Yukong
Line of Korea V. Rendsburg Investments demonstrates the importance of lateral piercing in avoiding
responsibility avoidance Rendsburg had reneged on a charter-party agreement with Yukong after
economic conditions had worsened in that instance (Prentice, 1995). Rendsburg's shareholder moved its
assets to another firm managed by him on the same day. Although the shareholder in question was an
individual, the identical chain of events could easily occur with a corporate parent. A corporate parent
might do exactly what Yukong did to avoid responsibility without lateral piercing. One could wonder why
the lateral piercing method provided for involuntary piercing is plainly unsuitable for voluntary piercing.
Jurisdiction, impropriety, and causality issues associated with deciding whether voluntary piercing
should be limited to asset stripping scenarios and not applied to all integrated subsidiaries

Although macroeconomic research shows that lateral piercing against connected subsidiaries
should be possible, assessing the level of financial interconnectedness of related firms is challenging. It
necessitates a high level of commercial knowledge on the side of the courts (Khimji & Nicholls, 2015).
Furthermore, given British courts' legalistic stance to judicial ruling and antipathy to nondoctrinal
concerns, such an investigation is exceedingly implausible. As a result, lateral piercing is restricted to
asset stripping circumstances.

2. Voluntary Piercing
The debate is if the concept of a singular economic organization should be susceptible to
voluntary piercing in the first place. Considering the extensive reasons barring voluntary piercing, the
method is unlikely to be relevant in cases of voluntary piercing. Beckett, on the other hand,
demonstrated the British courts' continued commitment to hear voluntary piercing assertions
(Vandekerckhove, 2007). If the concept is made accessible for voluntary piercing, it should be done only
in extraordinary situations. Few mitigating situations should be accepted in order to keep so under
particular economic entity approach, voluntary piercing should be kept to a bare minimal. Requires the
identification of a mitigation incident, the judge must consider the conditions' equity and policy
elements in attempt to establish when voluntary piercing is permissible.

For a variety of purposes, such a wide method is best suited for voluntary piercing. To begin, the
huge strain approach provided for involuntary piercing is manifestly unsuitable for consensual piercing.
The issue of client losing power, appropriateness, and causality has very little to do with how or not
voluntary piercing should be permitted (Prentice, 1995). Second, while many instances of unintentional
piercing have the identical basic dilemma of restricted culpability, voluntary piercing cases involve such
a broad range of circumstances that a comprehensive framework for judging them is likely unattainable.
 Third, in every voluntary piercing matter, the court will have to decide whether the corporate
parent should be permitted to lay apart its own subsidiary's independent personality following reaping
the advantages of incorporation (Cheng, 2011). As a result, a totality of factors approach is most likely
the best answer. Even though this means that there will be minimal consistency in voluntary piercing
instances, the essence of voluntary piercing appears to make an absence of legal certainty unavoidable.

CONCLUSION
In this aspect, legal revision is required to bring the British stance nearer to that of other
regimes that have built a more consistent framework. Presently, the notion of penetrating the corporate
veil continues to be a significant issue since the constitutional underpinnings of it have yet to be
adequately established by the English Courts. Certainly total reformation of the theory is too extreme,
but the idea of restoring its underpinnings is not too far-fetched. Meanwhile, Vandekerckhove (2007)
noted that the Judiciary tries to retain from properly accommodating breaching the corporate veil,
preferring adhering to the concept of last resort. Grantham has criticized the Prest test as 'legalistic,
formalist, and technical,' adding that it 'expressly avoids looking at the content and economic impacts.'

There are no hard and fast rules governing the notion of penetrating the corporate veil. For
years, authorities have labored to establish and enhance their examination of these allegations. Cheng
(2011) mentioned that each successive action, nevertheless, introduces a fresh set of relevant facts into
the picture, and a distinct assessment must always be rendered as to whether the plaintiff has
substantiated adequate proof of power and influence, inappropriate purpose or use, and ensuing injury.

The choice to breach the corporate veil may be aided, at least partially, by the advice of
experienced specialists. Advisory opinion, particularly, would assist the trier of fact in deciding whether
the business has been sufficiently funded for its original purpose. On the other hand, the decision to
overlook the corporate organization will finally rely on weighing of numerous considerations, all or some
of which are required but may not be adequate to penetrate the veil (Saxena, 2010). The Court of
Appeal's decision in the Adams case can be stated to be the current policy, which is nothing more than a
reaffirmation of the House of Lords' decision in Solomon's case. The basic line is that only the judiciary
will raise the curtain in the face of egregious misuse of the corporate structure. Furthermore, the
tendency of a rise or reduction in judicial pronouncements addressing the uplifting of the veil of a
corporate body cannot be determined because each court's position on the lifting of the corporate veil is
dependent on the facts of each case.

There is no debate about the significance of corporate identity and restricted liability. There is
no other notion that can replace the concept. In a nutshell, without the notion of limited liability, it is
hard to imagine the smooth operation of a business in the present day. Conversely, when someone
abuses the benefit of limited culpability, it causes serious injury to the general public (Prentice, 1995).
Talented and genuine businessmen lose interest in commercial transactions, creditors lose interest in
investing, and ordinary shareholders live their days in fear and uncertainty. Exploitation of the Privilege,
in the end, becomes a hindrance to the advancement of the commercial transaction (Vandekerckhove,
2007). The goal of the idea of independent corporate personality, as mentioned previously, is to
stimulate and expedite industrialization or economic transactions, not to block them.

The corporate veil concept, as a criterion deviation to the overall concept of limited liability,
includes the fundamental choice facing every sector of legislation and every judiciary structure: the
choice between procedural assurance and the achievement of justice in individual cases. Limited liability
encourages business investment by providing legal stability. Nevertheless, as many judges have
recognized, a steadfast defense of it will lead in particular cases of unfairness (Cheng, 2011). The
corporate veil doctrine's role is to ensure that no abuses arise. Given the UK's liberal image, it may come
as a shock that US judges have taken a more proactive approach to breaching the corporate veil.

As a result, it is plainly evident that integration does not eliminate personal accountability at all
times and under all conditions. "Honest enterprise through firms is permitted; but, the public is
safeguarded against kitting and humbug." The integrity of a distinct entity is maintained only to the
extent that the entity is consistent with the foundational policies that give it existence.

As a result, those who profit from the formation process must ensure a corporate structure
appropriate to the scale of the firm. They are not permitted to remove company assets or mix their
personal accounts with those of the company (Cheng, 2011). The Judiciary has used these circumstances
as evidence to warrant imposing culpability on the stockholders in the past.

The process of breaching the corporate veil is still one of the foremost contentious topics in
company law. There are several classifications, such as fraud, agent, charade or façade, injustice, and
cooperative operations that are seen to be the most unusual grounds for the Judicial Systems to pierce
the corporate veil. However, these divisions are only recommendations and are far from exhaustive
(Vandekerckhove, 2007).
 REFERENCES
Alanazi, B.M.A., 2020. Piercing the corporate veil in various jurisdictions–Principled or
unprincipled?. Corporate Board role duties and composition, 16(2), pp.47-53.

Chan, L., 2014. Corporate Veil-Piercing in China: Current Practice, Future Challenges, & Suggestions for a
Robust Enforceable Regime. Future Challenges, & Suggestions for a Robust Enforceable Regime
(May 31, 2014).

Cheng, T.K., 2011. The corporate veil doctrine revisited: A comparative study of the English and the US
corporate veil doctrines. BC Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 34, p.329.

Cheng-Han, T., Wang, J. and Hofmann, C., 2019. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and
Comparative Perspectives. Berkeley Bus. LJ, 16, p.140.

Christopher, M.M., 1984. Piercing the Corporate Veil between Foreign Governments and State
Enterprises: A Comparison of Judicial Resolutions in Great Britain and the United States. Va. J.
Int'l L., 25, p.451.

Dignam, A. and Oh, P.B., 2019. Disregarding the Salomon Principle: An Empirical Analysis, 1885–
2014. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(1), pp.16-49.

Enwukwe, N.E., 2020. Piercing the Corporate Veil of An Incorporation to Ascertain the Real Actors: the
United Kingdom Approach. Port Harcourt Journal of Business Law PHJBL, 7.

Farat, A. and Michon, D., 2008. Lifting the Corporate Veil: Limited Liability of the Company Decision-
Makers Undermined: Analysis of English, US, German, Czech and Polish Approach. Common L.
Rev., 9, p.21.

Gakungi, F., 2011. The Interpretation of the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil by the UK Courts is
More Successful than by the US Courts. King's Student L. Rev., 3, p.211.

Ireland, P., 2010. Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate
irresponsibility. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(5), pp.837-856.

Kakubo, M.M., 2011. Justifications for piercing the corporate veil (Master's thesis, University of Cape
Town).

Khimji, M.F. and Nicholls, C.C., 2015. Corporate Veil Piercing and Allocation of Liability: Diagnosis and
Prognosis. Banking & Finance Law Review, 30(2), p.211.

Kusuma, N.C.E. and Amboro, F.Y.P., 2020. Doing the Corporate Business with Piercing the Corporate Veil
Doctrine: Indonesia, Us And Uk Perspective. Sociological Jurisprudence Journal, 3(2), pp.126-129.

Levenberg, P.N., 2019. The Mystery of the Corporate Veil: Comparing Anglo-American
Jurisdictions. Penn St. JL & Int'l Aff., 7, p.115.

Lezcano, J.M., 2015. Piercing the corporate veil in Latin American jurisprudence: A comparison with the
Anglo-American method. Routledge.
Mucha, A., 2017. Piercing the corporate veil doctrine under English company law after Prest v Petrodel
decision.

Mujih, E., 2017. Piercing the corporate veil: where is the reverse gear?. Law Quarterly Review, 133,
pp.322-337.

Nsubuga, H.J., 2020. The road to Prest v Petrodel: an analysis of the UK judicial approach to The
Corporate Veil-part 1. International company and commercial law review, 31(10), pp.547-588.

Nyombi, C., 2014. Lifting the veil of incorporation under common law and statute. International Journal
of Law and Management.

Prentice, D.D., 1995. Veil Piercing and Successor Liability in the United Kingdom. Fla. J. Int'l L., 10, p.469.

Saxena, H., 2010. Lifting of Corporate Veil. Available at SSRN 1725433.

Schall, A., 2016. The new law of piercing the corporate veil in the UK. European Company and Financial
Law Review, 13(4), pp.549-574.

Sokratous, M., 2017. Lifting of the corporate veil in UK and Cyprus under common law: overall
dimensions of the topic.

Spellenberg, U., 2013. Lifting the Corporate Veil in England. In Gedächtnisschrift für Jürgen
Sonnenschein (pp. 719-742). De Gruyter.

Tan, C.H., Wang, J. and Hofmann, C., 2018. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and
Comparative Perspectives.

Tham, C., 2007. Piercing the corporate veil. Searching for appropriate choice of law rules. Ll. LR, 34,
pp.22-43.

Udemezue, S., 2020. Does Salomon v. Salomon Still Reign? A Disquisition on Recent Case Law on
Corporate Legal Personality and Lifting the Veil. Salomon Still Reign.

Vandekerckhove, K., 2007. Piercing the corporate veil. Eur. Company L., 4, p.191.