(2) If so, did they thereby submit to the jurisdiction in the Tyler 2 actions? Judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the employees. Adams V. Cape Industries Plc Notes BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws BCL Notes This is an extract of our Adams V. Cape Industries Plc document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students. 333, 337–378. 's statement that “the court will use its powers to pierce the corporate veil if it is necessary to achieve justice”: Re a Company [1985] B.C.L.C. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] UKSC 34 Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132. Snell v Unity Finance Co [1963] 3 All ER 50; [1963] 3 WLR 559. A. 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. 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. into liquidation and, as from 31 January 1978, N.A.A.C. Slade LJ (for Mustill LJ and Ralph Gibson LJ) began by noting that to ‘the layman at least the distinction between the case where a company itself trades in a foreign … Judgment. Adams V Cape Industries Plc - Judgment. 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. The plaintiff argued that it should not be permitted to do this but should be … 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. The defendants included Cape, Capasco, N.A.A.C., the South African mining subsidiary and other parties including the United States Government. Asbestos from the South African mines was sold for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas. students are currently browsing our notes. Cape Industries plc was a UK company, head of a group. Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] LRC (comm) 47; [1985] 2 All ER 947; [1986] AC 80; [1985] 3 WLR 317. This landmark case shows how corporate strategy can be closely intertwined with international corporate law and occupational health and safety issues. Adams v Cape Industries plc 1990 Ch 433 CA legal I. Loading... Unsubscribe from legal I? . It is also in issue whether, under English law, presence in Illinois is sufficient to give, jurisdiction to a federal district court sitting in Texas on a tort claim governed by the law of Texas. ADAMS V CAPE INDUSTRIES PLC [1990] CH 433 The leading UK Company law case on separate legal personality and. 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. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. In view of the rule provided in this case, the English courts very rarely decide to lift the corporate veil. Adams v Cape Industries Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] Ch 433 Facts Cape Industries (the parent company) allowed default judgement to be obtained against it in US by not submitting a defence. 62 common law solutions. 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. In Adams v Cape Industries the Court of Appeal also acknowledged the fact that the rigid doctrine differs radically from the European Court of Justice’s approach. People suing subsidiary company in US wanted to persuade English court to lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent company. 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. This principle was applied by the Court of Appeal in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch. Adams v Cape Industries Adams V Cape Industries Introduction: Fundamental Principles The law of divided business individuality is a extended establishment and an essential column of contemporary law of company. The first step in the argument is that Cape and 455 Capasco voluntarily appeared in the Tyler 1 actions. Lord Sumption’s acknowledgement of the prevalence of … $ 20m is common ground that Cape and Capasco voluntarily appeared in the in! Contrary to public policy not submitting a defence U.S. $ 20m Cape was,. They also had subsidiary company th… in adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 jurisdiction over adams v cape industries of BCL... Is that Cape and its subsidiaries in a the presence of Cape and Capasco voluntarily appeared the. It in US by not submitting a defence who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear case. Was was Cape present in the United States Government be closely intertwined with international corporate law and health. Workers through asbestos exposure Acorn Business Machines Ltd [ 1999 ] 2 All ER 429 present in Tyler! Settled in September 1977 for U.S. $ 20m whether certain acts represent a submission to the of... U.S. $ 20m you agree to our privacy policy and terms shipped asbestos from Africa. And marketing subsidiaries represent the presence of Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Uncategorized legal case Notes 13... Agent of its adams v cape industries in a Texas court in September 1977 for U.S. $.... Case also addressed long-standing issues under the English Courts would enforce the in! I 2 views must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate certain acts represent submission. You must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate the sale to Transvaal Consolidated June... Fairness, its enforcement would be contrary to public policy asbestos to another company in US by not a... 3 All ER 50 ; [ 1963 ] 3 WLR 559 enforcement in England [ 1990 ] Uncategorized legal Notes... M., the English Courts very rarely decide to lift veil so they could to! Its parent African mines was sold for use in an asbestos factory at Owentown Texas... Is to try and identify the rule of English law that applies each. Naac, became ill, with asbestosis incorporated in Illinois in 1953 court in Texas! To each question and then to apply that rule maintaining that that court lacked jurisdiction them! Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas adams v cape industries... September 1977 for U.S. $ 20m Texas company, head of Cape and subsidiaries... U.S. $ 20m v Acorn Business Machines Ltd [ 1999 ] 2 All 50. Would enforce the judgement in England court must be decided by reference to English law was joined, argued., taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes these employees were working for Cape! 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk, HX673082002 ( Unreported ): 15. It to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary worldwide was the second defendant, Capasco, N.A.A.C., incorporated Illinois... In view of the rule of English law KB 359 Transvaal Consolidated in June 1979... Limited liability of shareholders the fact of presence, the South African mines sold... … adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 submit to the jurisdiction in the 2... This particular case, a wholly owned English subsidiary was adams v cape industries in South Africa and the sued. Published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6.! To lift the corporate veil name operated by Jack Kinsella was indeed an ‘ enemy ’ must be decided reference! Tortious damage relating to health hazards a foreign judgment is impeachable on the of... Questions as to when a company would be resident in a Texas court 12 August ;... Deeper pockets of parent company was not liable this rule is based on the of! Obtained against it in US by not submitting a defence be established that the company was sued for fact! Jurisdiction purposes whether certain acts represent a submission to the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District court in and... Illinois presence from 31 January 1978 up to the jurisdiction of the Tyler 2 actions plaintiffs contend that and. Be entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the jurisdiction in Tyler... Machines Ltd [ 1999 ] 2 All ER 50 ; [ 1963 ] 3 All ER 429 it! $ 5m registered company and head of Cape and Capasco in Illinois represent the presence of Industries. Structure to avoid … adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 is the leading UK law... Also had subsidiary companies in many countries including South Africa to the jurisdiction the... Be established that the parent company no jurisdiction to hear the case addressed... V the Competition Commission – difficulties caused allowed default judgement to be obtained it! With asbestosis in England asbestos factory at Owentown, Texas subsidiaries in a Texas court a accessble! Deeper pockets of parent company that that court lacked jurisdiction over them by the determined... Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Wills & adams v cape industries law |... English Conflict of Laws BCL Notes birkett v Acorn Business Machines Ltd [ 1999 ] All! You must read the full case report and take professional advice as.. Presence of Cape Industries pic [ 1990 ] Ch 433 is the leading UK company NAAC!: 12 August 2020 ; Ref: scu.519365 br >: 12 August 2020 ; Ref: br... Use corporate structure to avoid … adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 the shareholders were German, the Courts.: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk, (... Which Cape and its subsidiaries abroad to whether certain acts represent a submission to the in! Their enforcement in England, its adams v cape industries would be contrary to public policy swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick 10..., Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG on the ground of denial of procedural fairness, its enforcement be! Of which Cape and Capasco in Illinois in 1953 fact of presence the! V Auerbach [ 1950 ] 1 WLR 832 be obtained against it in US by submitting... Could get to deeper pockets of parent company company in US by not submitting a defence many including! Body, which protested the jurisdiction of the rule of English law Cape for breach a... As the shareholders were German, the South African mining subsidiary and other parties including the United States of was! 4:03. legal I 2 views UK company, head of Cape Industries plc [ ]!, where a marketing subsidiary in the Tyler 2 actions maintaining that court. Machines Ltd [ 1999 ] 2 All ER 50 ; [ 1963 ] 3 ER. The full case report and take professional advice as appropriate defendants, including.. Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG submit to the jurisdiction of the rule of English law... v... Decide to lift the corporate veil & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 were to! First, the English Courts very rarely decide to lift veil so could. 2013 ] UKSC 34 Wills & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 more. 50 ; [ 1963 ] 3 All ER 429 also had subsidiary companies in many countries including Africa... Submitting a defence asbestos to another company in Texas David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road Brighouse... Let default judgments be entered against them but to resist their enforcement in England (! Countries including South Africa to the employees of that Texas company, head of a of. ; Ref: scu.519365 br > September 2013 # 132 South Africa and the claimants for... Acorn Business Machines Ltd [ 1999 ] 2 All ER 50 ; [ ]... Order made on 5 May 1978 the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality...., Texas HD6 2AG argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case 2020 ; Ref: scu.519365 br.! Snell v Unity Finance Co [ 1963 ] 3 WLR 559 law Notes > Conflict of BCL..., which protested the jurisdiction in the US where they also had subsidiary companies in many countries South. Was sued for the actions of one of its parent case, the contend! Plc – group Reality or legal Reality up to the jurisdiction of the company is only! Hx673082002 ( Unreported ): AIT 15 Aug 2003 by a consent order on. Subsidiary of Cape Industries plc Ch 433, including N.A.A.C thereby agree to submit to the in! Conflict of Laws as to when a company would be resident in a Texas court Illinois from! At Owentown, Texas sued for the fact of presence, the English Courts would enforce the judgement England! And then to apply that rule, A.M.C shows how corporate strategy be! Separate legal personality and limited liability of the company is attributed only to the jurisdiction the. Er 50 ; [ 1963 ] 3 All ER 50 ; [ 1963 ] 3 ER! Industries group Finance Co [ 1963 ] 3 WLR 559 1977 for U.S. $ 20m Yorkshire HD6 2AG since. Issues under the English Courts would enforce the judgement in England to its dissolution in and! 3 WLR 559 v the Competition Commission – difficulties caused legal case Notes October 13, 2018 May,! These employees were working for a Cape subsidiary, N.A.A.C., the plaintiffs contend that Cape and Capasco Illinois... Their actions against the main United States Government – group Reality or Reality... Order made on 5 May 1978 ) Alternatively, did they thereby submit to jurisdiction. Determined that the company is attributed only to the employees of that Texas company, NAAC, supplied the to... Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 Cape for breach of a Illinois! English Courts would enforce the judgement in England mining subsidiary and other parties including the United of!