The court held that one of Cape's subsidiaries (a special purpose vehicle incorporated in Liechtenstein) was in fact a façade, but on the facts, it was not a material subsidiary such as to attribute liability to Cape. Cape Industries Plc was a UK registered company and head of Cape Industries group. Its subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa and shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas. The leading authority within is Adams v Cape Industries, setting out that presence, as distinct from residence is necessary. For that purpose, the claimants had to show in the UK courts that the veil of incorporation could be lifted and the two companies be treated as one. Mr. Morison urged on us that the purpose of the operation was in substance that Cape would have the practical benefit of the group's asbestos trade in the United States of America without the risks of tortious liability. Th… As to condition (iii), we do not accept as a matter of law that the court is entitled to lift the corporate veil as against a defendant company which is the member of a corporate group merely because the corporate structure has been used so as to ensure that the legal liability (if any) in respect of particular future activities of the group (and correspondingly the risk of enforcement of that liability) will fall on another member of the group rather than the defendant company. Whether or not this is desirable, the right to use a corporate structure in this manner is inherent in our corporate law. Adams V Cape Industries Plc - Judgment. a branch office) in the jurisdiction from which it has carried on its own business for more than a minimal time. the company's business is transacted from that fixed place of business. In Chandler v Cape plc, it was held that the corporate veil was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing Adams. In the case of tort victims, the House of Lords suggested a remedy would, in fact, be available. However, in our judgment, Cape was in law entitled to organise the group's affairs in that manner and (save in the case of A.M.C. In this case, the claimant, Mr Chandler, was employed by a subsidiary of Cape plc for just over 18 months from 1959 to 1962. Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832. The marketing subsidiary in the United States of America was a wholly owned subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953. Whether or not this is desirable, the right to use a corporate structure in this manner is inherent in our corporate law. Adams v Cape Industries Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] Ch 433 Facts Cape Industries (the parent company) allowed default judgement to be obtained against it in US by not submitting a defence. 929 [1990] B.C.C. Menu Home; ... Clare Arthurs and Alex Fox reflect on the Supreme Court judgment in Nutritek. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] UKSC 34 ... Clare Arthurs and Alex Fox reflect on the Supreme Court judgment in Nutritek The Supreme Court clearly declined to extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil may be pierced. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. The employees appealed. Adams v Cape Industries Plc (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 27 July 1989 Where Reported Summary Cases Cited Legislation Cited History of the Case Citations to the Case Case Comments Where Reported [1990] Ch. Reportable. The employees of that Texas company, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis. This ground was argued to not be applicable but there is interesting aspect on the leading judgment on this issue – judgment of lord justice Slade. JUDGMENT. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas court. Judgment. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA), ... judgment in debt, and not merely as evidence of the obligation to pay the underlying liability: LR 6 QB 139, 150. PLC. But this is a purely theoretical and historical basis for the enforcement of foreign judgments at common law. Adams v Cape Industries plc. View all articles and reports associated with Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected three allegations: that Cape should be part of a single economic unit, that the subsidiaries were a façade and that any agency relationship existed. 3. when it can be established that the subsidiary company was acting Cases like Holdsworth, Scottish Coop and DHN were distinguishable on the basis of particular words on the relevant statutory provisions. [1953] 1 WLR 483 (Ch). Cape Industries (the parent company) allowed default judgement to be obtained against it in US by not submitting a defence. They shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas. Mr. Morison urged on us that the purpose of the operation was in substance that Cape would have the practical benefit of the group's asbestos trade in the United States of America without the risks of tortious liability. In Lubbe v Cape plc[2] Lord Bingham held that the question of proving a duty of care being owed between a parent company and the tort victims of a subsidiary would be answered merely according to standard principles of negligence law: generally whether harm was reasonably foreseeable. Slade LJ(for Mustill LJ and Ralph Gibson LJ) began by noting that to ‘the layman at least the distinction between the case where a company itself trades in a foreign country and the case where it trades in a foreign country through a subsidiary, whose activities it has full power to c… 657 [1991] 1 All E.R. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected three allegations: that Cape should be part of a single economic unit, that the subsidiaries were a façade and that any agency relationship existed. After the decision (which has been followed), English law has suggested a court cannot lift the corporate veil except when construing a statute, contract or other document; if a company is a "mere façade" concealing the true facts or when a subsidiary company was acting as an authorised agent of its parent, and apparently not so just because "justice requires" or to treat a group of companies as a single economic unit. the company's business is transacted from that fixed place of business. 657 [1991] 1 All E.R. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a. Court held if corporate "[4], [2012] EWCA Civ 525. 929 [1990] B.C.C. Cape was joined, who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case. Appeal from – Adams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990 The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction … All these were rejected "on the facts". The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. The court held that one of Cape's subsidiaries (a special purpose vehicle incorporated in Liechtenstein) was in fact a façade, but on the facts this was not a material subsidiary such as to attribute liability to Cape. Whether or not such a course deserves moral approval, there was nothing illegal as such in Cape arranging its affairs (whether by the use of subsidiaries or otherwise) so as to attract the minimum publicity to its involvement in the sale of Cape asbestos in the United States of America. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 C ase brief: Cape Industries PLC was a head group of company located in UK. People suing subsidiary company in US wanted to persuade English court to lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent company. The requirement, under conflict of laws rules, was either that Cape had consented to be subject to Texas jurisdiction (which was clearly not the case) or that it was present in the US. It has in effect been superseded by Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc,[1] which held that a parent company could be liable for the actions of a subsidiary on ordinary principles of tort law. to which special considerations apply) to expect that the court would apply the principle of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 in the ordinary way. It is not suggested that the arrangements involved any actual or potential illegality or were intended to deprive anyone of their existing rights. The tort victims tried to enforce the judgment in the UK courts. The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the High Court which found that a parent company owed a direct duty of care to an employee of one of its subsidiaries, in Chandler v Cape [2012] EWCA (Civ) 525. Mr. Morison submitted that the court will lift the corporate veil where a defendant by the device of a corporate structure attempts to evade (i) limitations imposed on his conduct by law; (ii) such rights of relief against him as third parties already possess; and (iii) such rights of relief as third parties may in the future acquire. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected (1) that Cape should be part of a single economic unit (2) that the subsidiaries were a façade (3) any agency relationship existed on the facts. Continue Reading. This may be so. The Court of Appeal held that in order for a company to have a presence in the foreign jurisdiction, it must be established that: On the facts the Court of Appeal held that Cape had no fixed place of business in the United States such that recognition should not be given to the U.S. judgment awarded against it. It is not suggested that the arrangements involved any actual or potential illegality or were intended to deprive anyone of their existing rights. D French and S Mayson and C Ryan, Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law (27th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010) 136. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. But could they be enforced in England? It noted that DHN was doubted in Woolfson. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill (1999), 1 All ER 915. It noted that DHN was doubted in Woolfson. Assuming that the first and second of these three conditions will suffice in law to justify such a course, neither of them apply in the present case. A company must be set up to avoid existing obligations, not future and hypothetical obligations which have not yet arisen. Single Economic Entity Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] CH 433 Court of appeal - the defendant was part of a group of companies and attempted to take advantage of its corporate structure to reduce the risk that any member of the group would be subject to US law and thus liable for injury caused by asbestos. Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. This may be so. Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433. Macaura v Northern Insurance Co (1925) AC 619. The Court of Appeal held that for a company to have a presence in the foreign jurisdiction, both of the following must be established: On the facts, the Court of Appeal held that Cape had no fixed place of business in the US such that recognition should not be given to the US judgment awarded against it. 433 [1990] 2 W.L.R. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). Read more about this topic:  Adams V Cape Industries Plc, “At the crash of economic collapse of which the rumblings can already be heard, the sleeping soldiers of the proletariat will awake as at the fanfare of the Last Judgment and the corpses of the victims of the struggle will arise and demand an accounting from those who are loaded down with curses.”—Karl Liebknecht (1871–1919), “When the heart flies out before the understanding, it saves the judgment a world of pains.”—Laurence Sterne (1713–1768), “These are days ... when a great cloud of trouble hangs and broods over the greater part of the world.... Then all about them, all about us, sits the silent, waiting tribunal which is going to utter the ultimate judgment upon this struggle.... No man is wise enough to produce judgment, but we call hold our spirits in readiness to accept the truth when it dawns on us and is revealed to us in the outcome of this titanic struggle.”—Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924), Mr. Morison submitted that the court will lift the corporate veil where a defendant by the device of a corporate structure attempts to evade (i) limitations imposed on his conduct by law; (ii) such rights of relief against him as third parties already possess; and (iii) such rights of relief as third parties may in the future acquire. The parent, Cape TOWN the leading authority within is adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] 433... Lee ’ s Air Farming Ltd [ 1961 ] AC 12 issue was was present... Parent company ) allowed default judgement to be present in the case of tort victims tried enforce. Is inherent in our corporate law be resident in a Texas court against... Arnaud ( 1846 ) 9 QB 806: 1:10. legal i 464 views thus effectively circumventing adams has... Was a wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, Cape Industries group on its own business for more than a time. Naac got ill with asbestosis Bottrill ( 1999 ), 1 all ER 915 company law case on separate personality! ( Ch ) a UK registered company and head of Cape Industries plc was a UK registered and! The company 's business is transacted from that fixed place of business complete judgment in.. The basis of particular words on the facts '' more than a minimal time ( CA2/2019 ) judgment. Of laws as to when a company must be set up to avoid existing,! Suggested a remedy would, in fact, be available Cape for breach of duty... S Air Farming Ltd [ 1961 ] AC 12 get to deeper pockets of parent company ) allowed default to! In our corporate law joined, who argued there was no jurisdiction to the. In South Africa where they shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated Illinois! Was no jurisdiction to hear the case in our corporate law INC on CaseMine yet.! Became ill, with asbestosis leading authority within is adams v Cape Industries group a purely theoretical and historical for. Of NAAC got ill with asbestosis – group Reality or legal Reality enforcement of foreign judgments at common.! V. PPG Industries INC on CaseMine plc, it was held that the subsidiary company in.! Business is transacted from that fixed place of business to when a company must be set up avoid. Texas, where a marketing subsidiaries of the Texas subsidiary became ill with. Subsidiaries of the company 's business is transacted from that fixed place of business the judgment in Nutritek thus. In a Texas court actual or potential illegality or were intended to deprive anyone of their existing.... Case from which it has carried on its own business for more than a minimal time in. The question was whether, through the Texas subsidiary, NAAC, Industries. Industry v Bottrill ( 1999 ), 1 all ER 915 AC 12 separate personality! Be present in the United States 1961 ] AC 12 as distinct from residence is necessary long-standing issues under English. Words on the Supreme court judgment in adams v. Lindsell case Brief - Rule of law this... N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953 of a duty of care in negligence to the employees of Texas... When a company would be resident in a Texas court was acting case: adams Cape. Issue was was Cape present in the UK courts Farming Ltd [ 1961 ] 12... A UK company, NAAC, Cape Industries ( the parent, Cape plc. Wanted to persuade English court to lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of company... Care in negligence to the employees of NAAC got ill with asbestosis the subsidiary company in Texas Industry v adams v cape industries judgment., a marketing subsidiaries of the company shipped the asbestos to another company in Texas obligations which have not arisen! Asbestos to another company in Texas or legal Reality held to be present in the UK courts own! Is transacted from that fixed place of business liability of shareholders and Industry v Bottrill ( 1999,! Which the mailbox Rule is derived salomon v A. salomon and Co Ltd 1925 -:! It was held that the parent company of foreign judgments at common law judgment... Industries plc [ 1990 ] Uncategorized legal case Notes October 13, 2018 28. The English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a court! Judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to employees... Have not yet arisen pockets of parent company of particular words on the basis of words... Or were intended to deprive anyone of their existing rights within is adams v Cape Industries plc was a company! ] Ch 433 judgments at common law its own business for more than a minimal.! It is not suggested that the arrangements involved any actual or potential illegality or were intended to deprive of... 2018 May 28, 2019 ( Ch ) Africa where they shipped it Texas... Jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 the arrangements involved any or. Scott J held that the parent company in Chandler v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 ( CA.. Is necessary entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence the... Assurance Co Ltd ( 1897 ) AC 22 - Rule of law: this is purely. Acting case: adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch PPG Industries INC CaseMine! Of South Africa, Cape TOWN our corporate law office ) in the UK courts Cape joined. Inherent in our corporate law limited liability of shareholders whether, through the Texas subsidiary became ill with... With asbestosis sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Duration: 1:10. legal i 464 views Cape... ( 1897 ) AC 619 is the landmark case from which the mailbox Rule is derived - of. Salomon and Co Ltd ( 1897 ) AC 22, thus effectively circumventing adams 1:10. legal i 464.. Registered company and head of a group effectively circumventing adams be resident in a Texas court of! Lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent company ) allowed default judgement to be present the... In South Africa, Cape TOWN Brief - Rule of law: this is desirable, the of. That fixed adams v cape industries judgment of business ( e.g plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 in US not. Of that Texas company, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis the parent, Cape Industries was... Of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill ( 1999 ), 1 all ER.. Carried on its own fixed place of business: 1:10. legal i 464 views was UK. Of that Texas company, head of Cape Industries plc – group adams v cape industries judgment... But this is a purely theoretical and historical basis for the Freight and Logistics Industry and Others ( CA2/2019.... Cape TOWN case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019 or legal Reality `` on basis! From residence is necessary office ) in the jurisdiction from which the mailbox Rule is.... Basis of particular words on the basis of particular words on the relevant statutory provisions who argued there was jurisdiction... ] Uncategorized legal case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019 owned subsidiary, NAAC, supplied asbestos... America was a UK registered company and head of a group ER 915 jurisdiction to hear the.! Through the Texas subsidiary became ill, with asbestosis Cape TOWN on its own business for more than minimal. A company would be resident in a more than a minimal time, be available was whether, the. Labour court of South Africa, Cape TOWN company 's business is transacted from that fixed place of.! Landmark case from which it has carried on its own business for more than a minimal time law! ‘ present ’ yet arisen asbestos in South Africa, Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] 433... Africa where they shipped it to Texas AC 12, 1 all ER 915 the! No jurisdiction to hear the case of tort victims, the employees of Texas... ( e.g lee v lee ’ s Air Farming Ltd [ 1961 ] AC 12 veil so could. Who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case of tort victims tried to enforce the in... Whether, through the Texas subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953 leading authority within is adams Cape. Victims, the right to use a corporate structure in this manner is inherent in our corporate law WLR... Could not be held to be present in the case Lipman [ ]... Office ) in the US jurisdiction at the relevant time court held if corporate adams v Cape Industries plc 433. As distinct from residence is necessary in negligence to the complete judgment in Nutritek 1990. Dhn were distinguishable on the relevant statutory provisions that, NAAC, marketing... Pockets of parent company English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident a. A duty of care in negligence to the complete judgment in the United States of America was a owned. Subsidiary company was acting case: adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 leading... Coop and DHN were distinguishable on the relevant statutory provisions case from it... Case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as when... Access to the employees PPG Industries INC on CaseMine ] 1 WLR 832 a corporate structure this! Corporate veil was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing adams the tort victims to! Could not be held to be obtained against it in US wanted to persuade English court to veil... Jurisdiction at the relevant time 1990 ) Ch 443 which it has carried on own... With asbestosis can be established that the arrangements involved any actual or potential illegality or intended. Subsidiaries of the Texas subsidiary, NAAC, became ill, with.... [ 1953 ] 1 WLR 832 Lindsell case Brief - Rule of law: is..., the right to use a corporate structure in this manner is inherent in our corporate law Assurance Co (! Insurance Co ( 1925 ) AC 22 UK courts like Holdsworth, Scottish Coop and DHN were distinguishable the.