Macaura V Northern Assurance

Ditulis Thomas Hoffman Selasa, 20 September 2022 Tulis Komentar Edit

He was the companys largest creditor. Members have no interest in a companys property.

Macaura Vs Northern Assurance Co Ltd Separate Property Youtube

Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 AC 619.

. The owner of a timber estate sold all the timber to a company which was owned almost solely by him. On the banks instructions he insured the property. He was the owner and sole shareholder of the company but his Insurable interest only extended to the value of the shares in the company and he could not recover when the property was damaged.

This decision followed the much earlier case of Macaura v Northern Assurance 1925. The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are as a general principle the responsibility of that company alone. Indeed in Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd it is possible to see such application of the separate legal personality.

He insured the timber against fire but in. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution public companies now. The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986 the UK Corporate Governance Code European Union Directives and court cases the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business.

He decided to sell his timber estate to a company and in return he received almost all the shares of this company. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person unless they have expressly or implicitly. Reassuming briefly the facts Mr Macaura owned a timber estate.

Macaura Vs Northern Assurance Co Ltd Separate Property Youtube