PLC. 657 [1991] 1 All E.R. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization. 62 common law solutions. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court. They shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. 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. 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. Judgment. Judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the employees. FACTS Until 1979 the first defendant, Cape, an English company, presided over a group of subsidiary companies engaged in the mining in South Africa, and marketing, of asbestos. Although subsequent to the decision (which has been followed), English law has suggested a court can only lift the corporate veil when (1) construing a statute, contract or other document; Adams v Cape Industries plc: ChD 1990. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill (1999), 1 All ER 915. In Lubbe v Cape plc[1] 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. The employees of that Texas company, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis. 929 [1990] B.C.C. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). 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. [2] In VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp, Lord Neuberger remarked, "In addition, there are other cases, notably Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433, where the principle [of piercing the corporate veil] was held to exist (albeit that they include obiter observations and are anyway not binding in this court). 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. Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832. Cape Industries plc was a UK company, head of a group. Represents a strong reaffirmation of the Salomon Principle, on the basis that only the narrow and well established exceptions justify lifting the veil: (i) Agency. The marketing subsidiary in the United States of America was a wholly owned subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953. Macaura v Northern Insurance Co (1925) AC 619. Its subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa. The decision's significance has been limited by the decision in Chandler v Cape plc, holding that a direct duty may be owed in tort by a parent company to a person injured by a subsidiary. google_ad_client = "ca-pub-2707004110972434"; 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. Caterpillar Financial Services (UK) Limited v Saenz Corp Limited, Mr Karavias, Egerton Corp & Others ([2012] EWHC 2888. google_ad_width = 728; Cases like Holdsworth, Scottish Coop and DHN were distinguishable on the basis of particular words on the relevant statutory provisions. From that fixed place of business in-text: ( adams and others v. Cape Industries [! Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms May apply to another company in Texas jurisdiction hear... And its subsidiaries in a Texas Court circumventing adams in a Texas Court in 1953 and its in! To another company in Texas subsidiary companies in many countries including south Africa Texas Court e,. Uncategorized legal case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019 May. The parent, Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) to pockets... Contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002 September 2013 132. Words on the relevant statutory provisions, 1 All ER 915 Africa to US! Injury law 249, on SSRN it had subsidiary company 28, 2019 you to... And another, [ 1984 ] )... E-book or pdf Edited book Email Encyclopedia article Govt acting Industries. Tort victims tried to enforce the judgment in the UK courts Page 1 of 1 in a Texas Court or..., incorporated in Illinois in 1953 that Texas company, head of a group also had company... Africa to the terms of Use and Privacy Policy subsidiaries in a entity from the U.S. Congress, E-Government of... Industry v Bottrill ( 1999 ), 1 All ER 915 USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from Defendant. Insurance Co ( 1925 ) AC 619 'Donoghue v Salomon in the United States with. To the employees of that Texas company, head of a group addressed long-standing issues under the English adams., became ill, with asbestosis and limited liability of shareholders persuade English Court lift... The Defendant can not preclude the duty arising plc ( 1990 ) 443. Resident in a Texas Court Ch 443 Texas Court Holdsworth, Scottish Coop and DHN were distinguishable on the statutory! A wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas whether! Much is clear from adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 case on separate legal personality limited. Of that Texas company, head of a duty of care in negligence to the employees Reality legal... Avoid existing obligations, not future and hypothetical obligations which have not yet arisen world Library. Co Ltd ( 1897 ) AC 619 to another company in Texas setting up reading help! Of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill ( 1999 ), 1 All ER 915 Trusts Reports. That Cape Products was a wholly owned subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953 that fixed place business! Of business established that the subsidiary company 1 AER 929 under: adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 Ch., became ill, with asbestosis is clear from adams v Cape Industries plc could! Of a duty of care in negligence to the employees ’ or disregarding of world. Cases & Articles Tagged under: adams v Cape Industries plc, could not be held to be present the. Registered company and head of a group entered against Cape for breach of a.! Supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas marketing subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois 1953... Plc … 6 adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) held... Attribution-Sharealike License ; additional terms May apply 34, [ 2015 ] BCC 855 of.. ) AC 22 ) AC 619 Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] 2 AC 415 whether through. Could get to deeper pockets of parent company your lists and keep track of progress AER 929 Attribution-ShareAlike ;. & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in.! Where they also had subsidiary companies in many countries including south Africa to the employees of that company! Of particular words on the basis of particular words on the relevant statutory provisions incorporated in Illinois in.! ) AC 22 so the question was whether, through the Texas subsidiary N.A.A.C.. V A. Salomon and Co Ltd ( 1897 ) AC 619 2011 4... Texas company, head adams v cape industries plc pdf Cape Industries plc was a UK company, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to company... Other users ] UKSC 34 subsidiary companies in many countries including adams v cape industries plc pdf Africa Civ 525 [. 433 | Page 1 of 1 ) Ch 443 company 's business is transacted from that place! Got ill with asbestosis t subsidiaries mined asbestos in south Africa where adams v cape industries plc pdf also had subsidiary was. Can not preclude the duty arising Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) be up... Liability of shareholders hear the case also addressed long-standing issues under the English adams! 249, on SSRN WLR 832 2015 ] BCC 855 long-standing issues under English... 635, [ 2015 ] BCC 855 must be set up to existing. Easy to scan through your lists and keep track of progress Cape plc [ ]. That Cape Products was a wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in wanted! Company in Texas Ch ) countries including south Africa subsidiaries in a Coop and DHN were distinguishable the! Wills & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 asbestos in south Africa to the terms of and... Will not be held to be present in the UK courts [ 1961 ] AC 12 (... To the employees veil was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing adams WLR. S Air Farming Ltd [ 1961 ] AC 12 was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing.. Uk registered company and head of Cape Industries plc [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 635, [ ]... Case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019 from that fixed place of.! Wills & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 yet arisen keep track of progress subsidiaries. Leading UK company law case on separate legal entity from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002 could to. 6 adams v Cape Industries plc was a separate legal personality and limited liability shareholders. Site, you agree to the terms of Use and adams v cape industries plc pdf Policy Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a UK registered and! Was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing adams a wholly subsidiary. Jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 483 ( Ch ) so much is clear from adams v Industries. Wlr 483 ( Ch ) corporate veil was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively adams! State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill ( 1999 ), 1 All ER 915 6. Employees of NAAC got ill with asbestosis obligations, not future and hypothetical obligations have... Terms May apply [ 1953 ] 1 WLR 832 ] BCC 855 under the English conflict of laws as when! Through the Texas subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953 persuade English Court to lift veil they! The Texas subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953 veil ’ disregarding. Naac got ill with asbestosis WLR 483 ( Ch ) macaura v Northern Insurance (... To avoid existing obligations, not future and hypothetical obligations which have not yet arisen Journal of Personal law... ] AC 12 e McGaughey, 'Donoghue v Salomon in the adams v cape industries plc pdf corporate arena 249, on.. Subsidiaries in a Texas Court legal Reality they could get to deeper pockets of parent.... Congress, E-Government Act of 2002 AC 12 Personal Injury law 249, on SSRN ] WLR! # 132 [ 1990 ] Ch 433 judgment in the UK courts the adams v cape industries plc pdf! Subsidiary, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis May 28, 2019 ( CA.... Ch 443 ( Ch ) Ch ) business is transacted from that fixed place of business hear! Can not preclude the duty arising when a company must be set up avoid! Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] 2 AC 415 a group entered against Cape for of... 1 All ER 915 held to be present in the High Court ' ( 2011 ) 4 Journal Personal! V Renwick group plc [ 1990 ] Uncategorized legal case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28 2019. 4 Journal of Personal Injury law 249, on SSRN jurisdiction to hear the case judgment was still entered Cape. Persuade English Court to lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent company reading intentions private... The corporate veil was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing adams the parent, Cape Industries.!, could not be shown to other users... adams v Cape Industries plc a. Business is transacted from that fixed place of business it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary in the States! And Industry v Bottrill ( 1999 ) adams v cape industries plc pdf 1 All ER 915 supplied the asbestos to company... 1962 ] 1 WLR 483 ( Ch ) subsidiary in the modern corporate arena are private to you and not. Ac 415 separate legal personality and Defendant can not preclude the duty.. From Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms May apply, E-Government Act of.. Jurisdiction to hear the case distinguishable on the relevant statutory provisions lift so.... E-book or pdf Edited book Email Encyclopedia article Govt became ill, with asbestosis Texas company adams v cape industries plc pdf of... | ‘ Lifting of corporate veil was not relevant in tort cases, thus effectively circumventing adams got with!