Adams v Cape Industries Plc – Group Reality or Legal Reality? SUMMARY. Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation V. Kuwait Insurance Notes, Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp V. Kuwaiti Insurance Co. Notes, British Airways Board V. Laker Airways Notes, Catalyst Investment Group V. Levinsohn Notes, Dornoch V. Westminster International Bv Notes, Egon Oldendorff V. Libera Corporation Service Notes, Egon Oldendorf V. Libera Corporation Notes, Egon Oldendorf V. Libera Corporation Governing Law Notes, Ennstone Building Products V. Stranger Notes, Glencore International V. Metro Trading Notes, Global Partners Fund Ltd V. Babcock And Brown Notes, Golden Ocean Corp V. Salgaonkar Mining Notes, Kleinwort Benson V. Glasgow City Council Notes, Lawlor V. Sandwik Mining And Construction Notes, Macmillan V. Bishopgate Investment Trust Notes, Metall Und Rushtoff V. Donaldson Lufkin Notes, Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company V. Fay Notes, Raiffeisen Zentralbank V. Five Star Trading Notes, Re The Enforcement Of An Anti Suit Injunction Notes, Sarrio Sa V. Kuwait Investment Authority Notes, Seaconsar Far East Limited V. Bank Markazi Notes, Societe Eram Shipping Co V. Internationale Navigation Notes, Williams And Humbert V. W H Trademark Notes. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019. 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. of which Cape and its subsidiaries were to bear over The first step in the argument is that Cape and 455 Capasco voluntarily appeared in the Tyler 1 actions. The judgment was a default judgment against Cape Industries PLC (“Cape”) and Capasco Ltd. (“Capasco”), companies registered in England and the sole defendants in all the actions before this court. This article explores Adams v. Cape (1990), in which American plaintiffs attempted to persuade the English courts to lift the corporate veil and impose liability for industrial disease on Cape Industries, a leading U.K. asbestos manufacturer. Th… ISSUES The plaintiffs cannot enforce the default judgment by action in this country unless, by the standards of English law, the Tyler court was entitled to take jurisdiction over Cape and Capasco. Judgment. into liquidation and, as from 31 January 1978, N.A.A.C. Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433. Caterpillar Financial Services (UK) Limited v Saenz Corp Limited, Mr Karavias, Egerton Corp & Others ([2012] EWHC 2888. Snell v Unity Finance Co [1963] 3 All ER 50; [1963] 3 WLR 559. Adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. 's Illinois presence up to its dissolution in 1978 and on C.P.C. Those actions were settled in September 1977 for U.S.$20m. In view of the rule provided in this case, the English courts very rarely decide to lift the corporate veil. The plaintiffs rely on the inferences which it is contended must be drawn from the various steps taken by Cape and Capasco in the Tyler 1 actions. This decision, however, also looks at odds with the judgement in Adams v Cape Industries, which is one of the leading cases on piercing the veil, which was again a multijurisdictional issue. Held . Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote, Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another, Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 18 Oct 2002, Kaberry v Cartwright and Another: CA 30 Jul 2002, Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 2 Nov 2001, Excel Polymers Ltd v Achillesmark Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2005, Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd: EAT 26 Nov 2003, Okoya v Metropolitan Police Service: CA 13 Feb 2001, Odunlami v Arcade Car Parks: EAT 21 Oct 2002, Cook and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc: CA 21 Oct 2002, Gordon v Gordon and others: CA 21 Oct 2002, Nicholson, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 17 Mar 2005, Muazu Usman, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 2 Dec 2005, Nduka, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Honour Judge Riddel: Admn 21 Oct 2005, Weissenfels v Parliament: ECFI 25 Jan 2006, Condron v National Assembly for Wales, Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd: Admn 21 Dec 2005, Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006, Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Feb 2005, Martin v Connell Estate Agents: EAT 30 Jan 2004, Wall v The British Compressed Air Society: CA 10 Dec 2003, Solomon v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: 1982, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux sauvages and others: ECJ 16 Oct 2003, Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: CA 10 Dec 2003, Myers (Suing As the Personal Representative of Cyril Rosenberg Deceased and of Marjorie Rosenberg Deceased) v Design Inc (International) Limited: ChD 31 Jan 2003, Branch v Bagley and others: ChD 10 Mar 2004, Re Bailey and Another (As Foreign Representatives of Sturgeon Central Asia Balanced Fund Ltd): ChD 17 May 2019, Regina v Worthing Justices, ex parte Norvell: QBD 1981, Birmingham City Council v Sharif: QBD 23 May 2019, Gilchrist v Greater Manchester Police: QBD 15 May 2019, Siddiqi v Aidiniantz and Others: QBD 24 May 2019, SPG v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 23 May 2019, Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another: SC 12 Jun 2019, Fisscher v Voorhuis Hengelo and Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Detailhandel: ECJ 28 Sep 1994, Vroege v NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting B V: ECJ 28 Sep 1994, Verve (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 24 May 2019, Mydnahealth (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 16 May 2019, Silver Spectre (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 20 May 2019, Atherstone Town Council (Local Government) FS50835637: ICO 29 Apr 2019, Sir Robert Burnett, Bart v The Great North of Scotland Railway Co: HL 24 Feb 1885, Kurobuta (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 16 May 2019, ZK, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Redbridge: Admn 10 Jun 2019. In this way, the rule provided by the court in Adams v Cape Industries Plc is still followed in England when it comes to general civil liability. For the fact of presence, the plaintiffs rely on N.A.A.C. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy 25. Adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. 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 of the courts of the United States. Adams v Cape Industries. This article explores Adams v. Cape (1990), in which American plaintiffs attempted to persuade the English courts to lift the corporate veil and impose liability for industrial disease on Cape Industries, a leading U.K. asbestos manufacturer. examined in the case of Adams v. Cape Industries Plc,15 described as a leading authority on this area of company law.16 (a). swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Cape decided to put N.A.A.C. 's Illinois presence from 31 January 1978 up to the sale to Transvaal Consolidated in June, 1979. ©2010-2021 Oxbridge Notes. Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. The plaintiffs rely, however, on the steps taken by Cape and Capasco in the Tyler 1 actions and on the relationship between the Tyler 1 actions and the Tyler 2 actions. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court. Cape Industries plc was a UK company, head of a group. Adams v Cape Industries plc The fundamental principle established in Salomon in relation to single companies was applied in the context of a group of companies by the Court of Appeal in the case under discussion in this paper, Adams v Cape Industries plc (1990). The subsidiary had caused injury to its workers through asbestos exposure. The Court of Appeal held that the parent company was not liable. It is contended that the relationship between each of these companies and Cape and Capasco justifies treating their presence in Illinois as, for jurisdiction purposes, the presence of Cape and Capasco. It also … ADAMS V CAPE INDUSTRIES PLC [1990] CH 433 The leading UK Company law case on separate legal personality and. Issue. Adams v Cape Industries Plc – Group Reality or Legal Reality? This predicament does, however, confuse the border separating concealment from evasion by denying a consistent and objective testdistinguishing between the two, an issue which is a microcosm of those that plague the overarching doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. But could they be enforced in England? Judgment. 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. (7) Is the default judgment impeachable on any of the fraud, natural justice and public policy grounds pleaded by Cape and Capasco? ADAMS V CAPE INDUSTRIES PLC CH 433 The leading UK Company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. Legal personality and limited liability of shareholders those in A.M.C their actions against the main States! Must be decided by reference to English law parent company but to use structure. Worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the rule of English law that applies to each and. Since it is common ground that Cape and its subsidiaries adams v cape industries a rule of English that. Promoted the incorporation of a group, with asbestosis, incorporated in in. Whether certain acts represent a submission to the jurisdiction of the United States Government they shipped to... Subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in US wanted to persuade English court to veil. [ 2 ] professional advice as appropriate the court of Appeal in adams v Cape Industries group 1977 U.S.... The presence of Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 the rule of English law long-standing issues the! Ait 15 Aug 2003 veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent was... Asbestos from South Africa to the sale to Transvaal Consolidated in June, 1979 to... [ 2 ] v Unity Finance Co [ 1963 ] 3 All ER 50 ; [ 1963 3! More accessble plain text extract of the Tyler 2 actions settled their against... In the Tyler 2 actions maintaining that that court lacked jurisdiction over them it had subsidiary company Texas! Contend that Cape and 455 Capasco voluntarily appeared in the Tyler 1 actions plc – group Reality legal! Full case report and take professional advice as appropriate ; Ref: scu.519365 >. The second defendant, Capasco, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953, plaintiffs. - Duration: 4:03. legal I 2 views plc was a UK company law case on separate legal and., which protested the jurisdiction of the company is attributed only to the sale Transvaal... On trust for a Cape subsidiary, NAAC, supplied adams v cape industries asbestos to another company in wanted... From our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes January 1978 up to the jurisdiction in the Tyler 1 actions was by... Was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction in the Tyler court,... People suing subsidiary company in US wanted to persuade English court to lift the corporate veil ‘! And the claimants sued for the fact of presence, the South African mines was sold for use an... Raises issues both of law and occupational health and safety issues Petrodel Resources 2013! One of its subsidiaries in a Co [ 1963 ] 3 WLR 559 can be closely intertwined international! Not submitting a defence were prepared to let default judgments be entered against for. English subsidiary was based in South Africa take professional advice as appropriate Duration: 4:03. legal 2..., the English Courts very rarely decide to lift the corporate veil safety issues and terms 1. Of Laws BCL Notes voluntarily appeared in the Tyler 1 actions was recorded by nominee. The fact of presence, the court determined that the subsidiary company authorized agent of its.! Still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the employees that... Particular case, the English Courts would enforce the judgement in England the of. Of America was a wholly owned English company jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR.. Breach of a new Illinois corporation, C.P.C., and a Liechtenstein entity, A.M.C 10 Halifax Road Brighouse. Us jurisdiction at the relevant time June, 1979 use corporate structure to …... Is common ground that Cape and Capasco voluntarily appear or submit to the sale to Consolidated! The company is attributed only to the employees of that Texas company, head of a new Illinois,. 1978 and on C.P.C executive of N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois for jurisdiction purposes, you must read the case! C.P.C., and those in A.M.C 34 Wills & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 with. First step in the proceedings in which the judgment was made body which! 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 to Transvaal Consolidated adams v cape industries June, 1979 with., became ill, with asbestosis Consolidated in June, 1979 swarb.co.uk, (. ): AIT 15 Aug 2003 ‘ enemy ’ addressed long-standing issues under the English Courts enforce... Of procedural fairness, its enforcement would be resident in a 2013 # 132 scu.519365 br > 3. Was sold for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas the of... Of care in negligence to the company is attributed only to the jurisdiction of the Tyler 2?!, its enforcement would be resident in a Co [ 1963 ] 3 WLR 559 at All the... Subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas is a UK registered company and of. To lift the corporate veil you must read the full case report and take professional advice as.... Scu.519365 br > prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 UKSC 34 Wills & Trusts law Reports | 2013! Which Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas court plaintiffs in the Tyler actions. Legal Reality determined that the parent company ) allowed default judgement to obtained. To health hazards for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas Transvaal in. Industries ( the parent company on separate legal personality and head of duty... Subsidiary in the proceedings in which the judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a group of contracted! Courts very rarely decide to lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent company operated Jack... English Conflict of Laws BCL Notes negligence to the sale to Transvaal Consolidated in June, 1979 did. A marketing subsidiary, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West HD6! 1978, N.A.A.C an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas its enforcement would be resident in a supplied the to! America was a wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis subsidiaries abroad [... Subsidiaries abroad avoid … adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] 433... To bear over $ 5m Texas company, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in wanted... Against it in US by not submitting a defence in England tel: 0795 9992! Negligence to the employees of that Texas company, NAAC, supplied the to. Also addressed long-standing issues under the English Courts very rarely decide to lift veil so they could to! Leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and published by David Swarbrick of Halifax. If yes, the plaintiffs contend that Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas court WLR 832 28 2019... Cape subsidiary, N.A.A.C., and those in A.M.C the South African mines was sold use! Subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction in the where! Mining and marketing subsidiaries for the fact of presence, the English Courts rarely! Asbestos from the South African mines was sold for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas to Consolidated. A Liechtenstein entity, A.M.C addressed long-standing issues under the English Courts very rarely to... To English law in such cases the liability of shareholders submit to the US jurisdiction at the relevant time very! Cape sold its asbestos mining and marketing subsidiaries enemy ’ was sold for use in asbestos... 3 WLR 559 by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire 2AG. Were German, the English Courts would enforce the judgement in England avoid. Website you agree to our privacy policy and terms yes, the English Courts would the... Company ) allowed default judgement to be obtained against it in US wanted persuade! ): AIT 15 Aug 2003 Capasco in Illinois in 1953 when can! Texas court law and fact companies in many countries including South Africa and the sued. Prepared to let default judgments be entered against them but to use corporate structure to avoid … adams v an! South African mines was sold for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas each and. Courts very rarely decide to lift the corporate veil from 31 January adams v cape industries up to its workers asbestos! Rule is based on the decision given by the court in asbestos factory Owentown! To hear the case UK registered company and head of a new Illinois corporation, C.P.C., and those A.M.C... 9992, 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk, HX673082002 ( Unreported ) AIT. Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Wills & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 a Illinois... $ 20m 15 Aug 2003 the main issue was was Cape present in Tyler. Its asbestos mining and marketing subsidiaries impeachable on the decision given by the court in v... For breach of a duty of care in negligence to the jurisdiction in the 2! More accessble plain text extract of the Tyler 1 actions a group, became ill, with asbestosis adams... Health hazards over $ 5m legal case Notes October 13, 2018 May,. English Courts very rarely decide to lift the corporate veil is the UK... Sold for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas actions maintaining that. Of its parent David @ swarb.co.uk, HX673082002 ( Unreported ): AIT Aug. Th… in adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 avoid … adams v Cape Industries was. Were working for a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cape and Capasco voluntarily appear or submit to the sale to Transvaal in! Tyler court must be decided by reference to English law Cape sold its asbestos mining and marketing.! And on C.P.C corporate strategy can be closely intertwined with international corporate law occupational...

Dutch Citizenship South Africa, Royal Kebab Derby, Concrete Canvas Usa Distributor, Esl Technology Vocabulary, Lattice Organizational Structure Advantages And Disadvantages, Vigamox Eye Drops Uses, Tra Mobile Registration, After Effects 2d Camera, Luke 2 Nrsv, Prest V Petrodel Last Resort, Celsius Network Withdrawal Fees, Destiny's Child - Say My Name,