These are the exceptions to the rule in Salomon’s Case, when the corporate veil is lifted and the reality of the situation is examined.
It was held that As soon as citizens form a company, the rights guaranteed to them by article 19(1)c has been exercised and no restraint has been placed on the right and no infringement of that right is made.
However, the House of Lords held that the company was a different legal person from the shareholders, and thus Mr Salomon, as a shareholder and creditor, was totally separate in law from the company A Salomon & Co Ltd.
He had not transferred the insurance policy to the company. After the sale, Macaura continued to insure the plantation in his own name. When Macaura attempted to claim on the policy, the company refused to pay.
The issue was whether Macaura had an insurable interest at the time of the loss.
It is quite common in Ireland for one person to have such a variety of roles and still be a different legal entity from the company. Lee formed his crop spraying business into a limited company in which he was director, shareholder and employee. Lee was self-employed and thus not covered by the legislation. Lee and the company he had formed were separate entities, and it was possible for Mr. The following case is similar to Salomon and Lee, but the principle of separate personality worked to the disadvantage of the plaintiff.
When he was killed in a flying accident, his widow sought social welfare compensation from the State, arguing that Mr. The defendant company was involved in legal proceedings but did not have enough money for legal representation.