“The Doctrine of Salomon Vs A. Salomon: Examining the Myth and Fiction of Corporate Incorporation"

This paper sets out to examine the case of Salomon V.A. Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897). The case of Salomon V.A. Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897) UKHL1, Commonly referred to as the ‘‘Salomon’s case’’ is a landmark decision in Corporate law that established the principle of separate legal personality for companies. This doctrine has been widely regarded as a cornerstone of modern company law. However, there are claims that the Salomon’s case is a myth and a fiction. Suggesting that the doctrine established is flawed or misunderstood. In this essay, we critically examine these claims and demonstrate that the doctrine of separate legal personality is a valid and essential principle in the incorporation of companies.

Incorporation, Doctrine of Solomon Vs A. Solomin, Fiction, Myth

1. Cases [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. CONNELLY v RTZ Corporationplc(19970UKHL30 (1999) CC 533. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. LEE'S Air Farming Ltd (1961) AC 12, a statutory corporation was set up in part & operated like the veil was not lifted, and a director was treated as a worker of the CPY. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Lubble V. Cape PLC (2000) 1 WLR 1545. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. The famous Case of Daimler Co. Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Adams v Cape Industries PLC) - Chandler V. Cape PLC (2011) EWHC 951 (QB) stipulated that a parent CPY (Cape PLC) owed a duty of care to one of e employees of the subsidiary CPY. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. The Landmark case of SALOMON v. SALOMON & Co Ltd (1897) AC 22 CHL. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Publications [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. BLACKSTONE W., Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1765, vol. 1, cap. 18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. BRUNORI L., DESCHAMPS O. et PREVOST X., Pour une histoire européenne du droit des affaires : comparaisons méthodologiques et bilan historiographiques, Presses Universitairesde Toulouse Capitole, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. CHARESWORTH J. and MORSE G., Company Law 15th Edition, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1995. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. COLLIN T., Company Law, 2nd Edition, United Kingdom, London, Teach yourself Books, 1990. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. DICKSON B., Introduction to French Law, London, Pitman Publishing, 1994. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. GARNER B. A, Black’s Law Dictionary 7th edition, Eagan (Minnesota), West Group, 1999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. HARRIS R., Industrializing English Law, Entrepreneurship and Business Organization, 1720-1844, Cambridge University Press, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. MARTOR B. and al, Business Law in Africa: OHADA and the Harmonization Process, London, Gmb Pub Ltd, 2007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. MITCHELL C. C. J., Lifting corporate veil in English courts: An empirical study,Mansfield Press, 1996. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. OLAKUNLE OROJO, Company Law and Practice in Nigeria, Lagos, Mbeyi and Associates, 1992. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Articles [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. ARMOUR J., HANSMANN H., KRAAKMAN R. and PARGENDLER M., ‘‘What is Corporate Law? A comparative and functional approach’’, The Anatomy of Corporate Law, 2017, pp. 1-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. TURNER T. D., “The Development of English Company Law before 1900”, in WELLS H. (Ed.) Research handbook on the history of corporate and company law, ELGAR E. Publishing Ltd, 2018, pp. 1-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. JONES S. R. H. and VILLE S. P., ‘‘Efficient transactors or Rent-seeking Monopolists? The Rationae for eary chatered trading companies’’, in CONGLETON R. D., KAI A. K. and HILLMAN A. L., 40 years of research on rent seeing 2, 1996, pp. 509-526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. HANSMANN H. and KRAAKMAN R.,‘‘The Essential Role of Organizational Law’’, Yale Law Journal no 387, 2000, pp. 387-440. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. KAHN-FREUND O., ‘‘Some reflections on company law reform’’, The Modern Law Review, volume 7, Issue 1-2, 1994, pp. 54-56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Understanding ESG in Malaysia: Strategic Pathways for Sustainable Corporate Growth
• Environment, Sustainability, and Corporate Governance in Nigerian SMEs