This case introduced the idea of the separate leal personality of companies and began the distancing of company ownership, management and liability

This case shed some light on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in saying that where there has been some dishonesty on the part of the company member it is more likely that the veil will be lifted but this cannot be done to give a "fair" or "just" result otherwise. This case was about a divorce hearing where a husband had held assets in companies to keep them out of his patrimony so his wife couldn't access them.

Where a company is a sham the corporate veil can be lifted although it was held here that it shouldn't be. This was about former workers who were suffering due to asbestos exposure trying to sue the head company because the subsidiary they worked for held none of the assets.

The corporate veil will be lifted where the company was created fro fraud or for improper conduct

The idea of separate legal personalities extends to one man companies

Where the company is identifiable with only one person, the fraud of that person can be attributable to the company. The company (or creditors standing in its insolvent shoes) cannot rely on it's own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors because of the ex turpi causa non oritur actio rule (can't gain from your own fraudulent behaviours and misconduct).

Corporate veil will be lifted where the company was created and made contracts against public policy

The corporate veil can be pierced where companies can be considered partners. This is the opposite of the Adams v Cape Industries decision, where it was held that the veil could not be lifted.

In what instances does the Companies Act 2006 allow the corporate veil to be lifted?

Which sections of the Insolvency Act 1986 allow for the lifting of the corporate veil and under what circumstances?

Liability of companies under the law of delict will depend greatly on the circumstances of the individual case.

Under which act can companies be held liable under the criminal law for accidents which may result in death.

Where in the Companies Act 2006 are the provisions for capacity and responsibility to protect third parties where there is an action which has been completed outside of the capacity of the company?

Whether the company is responsible for your actions and therefore liable, comes down to whether you are directing the mind and will of the company. Here it was decided that an assistant branch manager who had failed to remove misleading promotional signs could not be seen as high up enough to direct the mind and will of the company and therefore the company were not held liable.

In this case it was held that de facto directors are bound by the same duties as appointed directors