The Claimants sought, principally, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy against the first to fourth Defendants and damages for breach of contract against the third and fourth Defendants.
Ownership and control of a company are in themselves insufficient to dislodge the principle of separate corporate identity. In order to justify lifting the veil of incorporation, ‘special circumstances (must) exist indicating that (the company) is a mere facade concealing the true facts’
Judges:
Warren J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 2973 (Ch), [2006] ArbLR 18
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Dadourian Group Int Inc v Simms and others (No 1) CA 11-Apr-2006
The court was asked to consider how it should exercise its discretion to order a world-wide asset freezing order.
Held: It dismissed the appeal in this case, but took the opportunity to provide eight guidelines for the way in which the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others CA 20-Dec-2006
The court considered the exercise by the court of its discretion to release a party who has obtained a freezing order from his undertaking not to use information obtained from the party against whom the freezing order is made in contempt proceedings . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Arbitration, Company
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.246809