- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
Adams v Cape Industries (1990) Facts: Cape was an English registered company. One of its subsidiaries, CPC, a company incorporated and carrying on business in the United States, had a court judgement against it. Held: It was unsuccessfully argued that the veil should be lifted between the companies so as to enable the judgement to be enforced against Cape. The Court of Appeal said there were no special circumstances indicating that CPC was a mere facade for Cape such as was the situation in Jones v Lipman. There was no agency as CPC was an independent corporation under the control of its chief executive The DHN doctrine of economic reality would not be extended beyond its own facts to facts such as these where the effect would be to make a holding company liable for its subsidiary’s debts.
I didn’t understand from the court of appeal till the last plz help
“doctrine of economic reality would not be extended beyond its own facts to facts such as these where the effect would be to make a holding company liable for its subsidiary’s debts.”
This is the only element that need concern you. This simply confirms that a company is a separate person in law and is solely responsible for its own debts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.