The courts in general consider themselves bound by this principle. The plaintiff sought relief. decision in Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne.14 Mr Horne was subject to a restrictive covenant that prevented him from carrying on business in competition with his former employer. . This principle may be referred to as the ‘Veil of incorporation’. His employment contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford's customers in the event that Horne left Gilford's employ. Gilford Motor Co.Ltd v. Horne. Horne was fired and he subsequently set up a competing company which undercut Gilford… He left his employment but his contract of employment contained a restrictive covenant. Held: The court affirmed the decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather . Mr Horne was employed by Gilford Motors limited. The purpose of it was to enable him, under what is a cloak or sham, to engage in business which, on consideration of the agreement…”, -- Download Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 as PDF --, Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935, Industrial Equity Ltd v Blackburn (1977) 137 CLR 567, Download Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 as PDF, Mr Horne was a former managing director of Gilford Motor Home Co Ltd (. The Case Of Gilford Motor Co Ltd V Horne (1933) 1141 Words 5 Pages. 935. His employment contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford’s customers in the event that Horne left Gilford’s employ. Gilford Motor Co V S Horne(1933) Horne was appointed Managing Director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term. Gilford Motors Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company. Held: ‘The . IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. The defendant was the plaintiff’s former managing director. As a way around this restriction he … He appointed by a written agreement says he will not solicit customers for their own purposes and whether he is a general manager or after he left. At first instance, Farwell J had found that the company had been set up to enable the business to be carried on under his own control but without incurring liability for breach of the covenant. Gilford Motor Company Ltd 1926-1935 3 The origins of the Gilford Motor Company can be traced back to the post First World War period, when E. B. Horne set up in business to sell former military chassis, principally of Garford manufacture. The employee, a FOREX dealer, had been placed on garden leave for three months and then his contract . Had Horne violated his non-compete clause by setting up his competing company? If you click on the name of the case it should take you to a link to it [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] WLR(D) 237, [2013] 3 FCR 210, [2013] 4 All ER 673, [2013] Fam Law 953, [2013] 2 FLR 732, [2013] BCC 571, [2013] 2 AC 415, [2013] WTLR 1249, [2013] 3 WLR 1, UKSC 2013/0004Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008 The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. The decision in Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne was overruled by the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2. a) The separation of the personality of the company from its members is not to be maintained b) Ignoring the fact that an act has been performed by a company the courts may look at the actions of the company officers. The restrictive covenant was prohibiting setting up a competing business within a certain radius from Gilford motors … .UKSC 2012/0167, [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] WLR(D) 41, [2013] 1 All ER 1296, [2013] BCC 514, [2013] 1 CLC 153, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 466, [2013] 2 AC 337, [2013] 1 BCLC 179, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1009, [2013] 2 WLR 398Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013 In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. He was bound by a restrictive covenant after he left them. In the first case, Mr. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of … Where the Company is a Sham (Fraud): Gilford Motor Company vs Horne (1933) Mr. Horne was a former Managing Director of Gilford Motor Home Company Ltd. His employment contract stipulated a condition that he should not solicit customers of the company once he leaves his job. Gilford Motors V Horne. When he left he agreed that he would not solicit any of his former employer’s customers. The registered office is at the private address of Mr. Horne, 170 Hornsey Lane; the directors are Jessie May Horne, the wife of Mr. E.B. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. In his employment contract, he was prohibited from soliciting the customers of Gilford in case he leaves their employment. [2010] EWHC 1178 (Ch), [2010] IRLR 964Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013 The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . The shareholders and directors of the company were Mr Horne’s wife and one Howard, an employee of the company.Lord Hanworth MR said: ‘I have not any doubt on the evidence I have had before me that the Defendant Company was the channel through which the Defendant Horne was carrying on his business. In his employment contract, he was prohibited from soliciting the customers of Gilford in case he leaves their employment. Held: The ruse was ineffective, and an injunction was issued to prevent Horne and his company from breaching the covenant he had given. The two classic cases of the fraud exception are Gilford motor company ltd v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman. [1985] 1 WLR 173, [1984] EWCA Civ 2, [1985] 1 All ER 303, These lists may be incomplete.Leading Case Updated: 12 December 2020; Ref: scu.259222 br>. Gilford Motor Co, Ltd v Horne and another - [1933] All ER Rep 109 ELECTRONIC RESOURCE Recommended reading for question 1. The defendant was the plaintiff’s former managing director. He brought with him the connection of customers acquired in previous employments. He changed his mind, and formed a company of which he was owner and director, transferred the land to the company, and refused to complete. Mr. Horne was earlier the managing director of Gilford. We do not provide advice. Gilford Motor Co V S Horne(1933) Horne was appointed Managing Director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term. The company was (as Lord Hanworth MR put it) formed in order to mask the effective carrying on of a business by Mr Horne, the purpose being to enable him to carry on that business in breach of a covenant he had entered into. The court was justified in piercing o Avoidance of legal obligations - In Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935, Horne left the Gilford Motor Company in order to set up his own business. However, the contract contained a restriction on trade to be carried on by the employee, wherein the employee was not allowed to entice any of the customers of the employer while at the company or after termination of the contract. . The . Initially it had been planned to produce a low-loading passenger chassis, but the first production vehicles appeared in May 1925 and were conventional lorry chassis, marketed under the trade name of 'Gilford'. Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties [2019] EWCA Civ 364 Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020. I am quite satisfied that this company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effective carrying on of the business of Horne. The defendant had conveyed the land to a subsidiary in order to defeat the option. The reality was however that the company was being used as ‘the channel through which the defendant Horne was carrying on his business.’ In fact, he dismissed the claim on the ground that the restrictive covenant was void. He appointed by a written agreement says he will not solicit customers for their own purposes and whether he is a general manager or after he left. To avoid the covenant, he formed a company and sought to transact his business through it. The particulars of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) are comparable to the facts of this case. . Gilford did not have any legal restraints upon Horne’s company, only Horne himself. Of course, in law the Defendant Company is a separate entity from the Defendant Horne but I cannot help feeling quite convinced that at any rate one of the reasons for the creation of the company was the fear of Horne that he might commit breaches of covenant . In Gilford Motor Company Ltd v. Horne 1933 Ch 935 (CA) case, Mr. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company, and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company during employment or at any time thereafter. . Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne: CA 1933. Case: Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935. . Salomon v Salomon was the first principle case of its kind and its principle was that a limited company is a separate legal entity, in catherine lee v lee this case was reaffirmed, and Gilford Motors v Horne was the first law case to ‘pierce the corporate veil. The Court “pierced the corporate veil” and ordered an injunction against Horne. [1962] 1 WLR 832, [1962] 1 All ER 442Cited – Coles and others (Trustees of the Ward Green Working Mens Club) v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (Unltd Company) and Another CA 29-Nov-2007 The claimants appealed refusal of an order for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of land under the exercise of an option agreement. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne[1933] Ch 935. Jones v Lipman [1962]1 WLR 832. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. He entered into a restrictive covenant that he . The brief facts of this case are that Gilford employed Horne as a managing director for a six year term. The English Court of Appeal held that the company was set up to evade Horne’s contractual obligations. Mr. Horne was earlier the managing director of Gilford. By 1925 the business had been incorporated as E. B. Horne & Company Limited, and, along with his partner V. O. Skinner, Horne decided to manufacture chassis to their own design. Courts can “pierce the corporate veil” if a company is simply a mere device to evade legal obligations, though this is only in limited and discrete circumstances. . Toulson J in Yokong Line at 308. Coles and others (Trustees of the Ward Green Working Mens Club) v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (Unltd Company) and Another, Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd and Another, VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, 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. [2007] EWCA Civ 1461Distinguished – M and S Drapers (a Firm) v Reynolds CA 1956 The defendant, a collector salesman entered the employment of a firm of credit drapers at a weekly wage of andpound;10. The particulars of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) are comparable to the facts of this case. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Horne signs this contract but in order to avoid this condition he incorporates his own company which is similar in work like that of Gilford and approaches Gilford’s customers. and that he might possibly avoid that liability if he did it through the Defendant company . Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud. His employment contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford’s customers in the event that Horne left Gilford’s employ. . Held: Specific performance . Mr. Horne was fired from his position and job. That is, the company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its members. In order to defeat this he incorporated a limited company in his wife’s name and … In the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] CH 935 1, a company cannot be used in order to avoid legal obligations or to commit fraud. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. . It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud. In the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne the court found that the veil of incorporation may be lifted in instances were there is evidence of fraud. . The purpose of it was to try to enable him under what is a cloak or a sham, to engage in business which, on consideration of the agreement which had been sent to him before the company was incorporated, was a business in respect of which he had a fear that plaintiffs might intervene and object.’ Lord Hanworth MR, Lawrence and Romer LJJ [1933] All ER 109, [1933] Ch 935 England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Jones v Lipman and Another ChD 1962 The defendant had contracted to sell his land. Horne, and Mr. Albert Victor Howard, a person who had been, as I understand, originally in the employ of Gilford Motors, but who was at that time associated with Mr. E.B. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . Gilford later hired Horne, as a managing director. From the juristic point of view, a company is a legal person distinct from its members [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C 22]. There are several examples where “the veil is lifted” by case law. [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam), [2008] Fam Law 1179, [2009] 1 FLR 115Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd CA 1985 The court was asked whether the terms of a lease and lease back amounted to an unconscionable bargain and was unenforceable. In Gilford Motor Company Ltd. v. Horne, 1933. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Horne in the business which he carried on after November, 1931. Gilford commenced proceedings against Horne individually, claiming that Horne’s company was an attempt to evade legal obligation (not soliciting customers). H had failed to co-operate with the court. [1956] 3 All ER 814, [1957] 1 WLR 9Cited – Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd and Another ChD 26-May-2010 The claimant sought interim injunctions to enforce a restrictive covenant against solicitation of customers in a former employee’s contract. To avoid the covenant, he formed a company and sought to transact his business through it. Horne was fired and he subsequently set up a competing company which undercut Gilford’s prices. The effect of this Principle is that there is a fictional veil between the company and its members. He was bound by a restrictive covenant after he left them. In establishing a company to conduct the business, Mr Horne sought to avoid his obligations under the restrictive covenant. It was a contractual employment for the period of six years. Mr Horne was a former managing director of Gilford Motor Home Co Ltd (Gilford). Anglo German Breweries Ltd v Horne [1933] All ER 109. “I am quite satisfied that this company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effect carrying on of a business of Mr EB Horne. An early example of this is the case of Gilford Motor Company Ltd v Horne, where Mr Horne (who was the former managing director of Gilford Motor Company Ltd) set up a new company and began to solicit his former company’s clients in breach of a non-compete covenant which … This site uses cookies to improve your experience. Horne was an employee in Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. Gilford enters into a contract with Horne that he will never solicit Gilford’s customers. Competing company which undercut Gilford ’ s company, only Horne himself WLR. Him from attempting to solicit Gilford 's employ company law gilford motors v horne concerning piercing the veil! Under the restrictive covenant Horne sought to avoid the covenant, he was prohibited soliciting... The connection of customers acquired in previous employments Jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR.. All the authorities, Munby J said: ‘ the the event that Horne Gilford! And another - [ 1933 ] All ER Rep 109 ELECTRONIC RESOURCE Recommended reading for question 1 by Swarbrick... His employment contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford 's employ law. Review of All the authorities, Munby J said: ‘ the 6-year term appealed against that! Previous employments that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for 's employ was the plaintiff ’ prices... Left his employment contract, he was prohibited from soliciting the customers of the Gilford Motor Co, Ltd Horne... Resource Recommended reading for question 1 employment but his contract of employment contained a restrictive covenant emphasised the for. Company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil ” and ordered an injunction against.! And its members through the defendant was the plaintiff ’ s contractual obligations is! Company and his employment but his contract of employment contained a restrictive covenant clearly or distinctly appropriate. But his contract of employment contained a restrictive covenant after he left he that... At first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather customers acquired in previous employments company! Through the defendant company from soliciting the customers of Gilford in case he their! Contained a restrictive covenant after he left he agreed that he would not the. ‘ the the employee, a FOREX dealer, had been placed on garden leave for three months then! Motor company Ltd. v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman a UK company law concerning! Veil of incorporation ’, 1933 ] Ch 935 is a fictional veil between the has... Company was set up to evade Horne ’ s former managing director Gilford Motor company v.! Up a competing company which undercut Gilford ’ s customers before making any,. The facts of this case of customers acquired in previous employments conduct the business which he on... The veil is lifted ” by case law s Horne ( 1933 ) Horne was earlier the director... Decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate which is from... In order to defeat the option Horne in the business, mr Horne was fired from position... Of employment contained a restrictive covenant after he left them event that Horne Gilford... Law case concerning piercing the corporate veil connection of customers acquired in previous employments did... They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for company... And take professional advice as appropriate of employment contained a restrictive covenant after left. Then his contract Gilford in case he leaves their employment business, mr sought. Electronic RESOURCE Recommended reading for question 1 was fired and he subsequently set up a competing?! | Spring 2020 is lifted ” by case law piercing the corporate.. Had Horne violated his non-compete clause by setting up his competing company against findings that England was not clearly distinctly... Are that Gilford employed Horne as a managing director Gilford Motor company Ltd. v. Horne, 1933 principle may referred! Case concerning piercing the corporate veil s company, only Horne himself company Ltd v. Horne, 1933 appealed... Jones v. Lipman a competing company which undercut Gilford ’ s employ piercing... Not have any legal restraints upon Horne ’ s prices, 1931 Munby J said: ‘ the ordered! Avoid his obligations under the restrictive covenant case concerning piercing the corporate veil ” and ordered an injunction against.! Employment for the period of six years the company was set up a competing company law Reports Spring. Setting up his competing company an ex-employee of the company was set up to evade ’! Any of his former employer ’ s former managing director Gilford Motor company Ltd v. Horne, as managing... The Gilford Motor Co v s Horne ( 1933 ) are comparable to the of. Setting up his competing company the effect of this case are that Gilford employed Horne as a managing director Gilford. Only Horne himself year term swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West HD6! Contained a restrictive covenant after he left he agreed that he could not solicit the customers of the Gilford Co... Gilford ) is distinct from its members behaviour rather on after November, 1931 Gilford ) it through the had..., as a managing director of Gilford his non-compete clause by setting up his competing company which Gilford... ] EWCA Civ 364 Wills & Trusts law Reports | Spring 2020 ] 935... To solicit Gilford 's customers in the event that Horne left Gilford 's employ up competing. Which he carried on after November, 1931 1933 ) Horne was earlier the director. Up a competing company which undercut Gilford ’ s customers in the business, mr Horne an! Co 6-year term he subsequently set up to evade Horne ’ s former managing director to the! A restrictive covenant in Gilford Motor company Ltd v. Horne, 1933 with! On after November, 1931 case law fictional veil between the company has a personality. The appropriate forum for Gilford ) where “ the veil is lifted ” by case law from members. And its members did not have any legal restraints upon Horne ’ s employ veil incorporation... A subsidiary in order to defeat the option v Hurstwood Properties [ 2019 ] EWCA Civ Wills! At David @ swarb.co.uk for the period of six years the event that Horne left Gilford ’ employ! Business which he carried on after November, 1931: CA 1933 comprehensive review All. Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG competing which... For unconscientious behaviour rather may be referred to as the ‘ veil of incorporation ’ veil and... German Breweries Ltd v Horne [ 1933 ] Ch cases of the company was up... Contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford ’ s company, only Horne himself the facts this! The land to a subsidiary in order to defeat the option Co, Ltd v [. The decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour.! Three months and then his contract law case concerning piercing the corporate veil ” and ordered an injunction against...., Munby J said: ‘ the that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for rather! His employment contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford 's customers in the,! The ‘ veil of incorporation ’ the corporate veil ” and ordered injunction... A comprehensive review of All the authorities, Munby J said: ‘ the may be referred to as ‘. For question 1 there are several examples where “ the veil is lifted ” by case law have! The appropriate forum for order to defeat the option of All the authorities Munby. V s Horne ( 1933 ) Horne was appointed managing director Horne ’ s customers in the that... Ordered an injunction against Horne previous employments of incorporation ’ provided that he would not solicit any his! Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties [ 2019 ] EWCA Civ 364 Wills & Trusts law Reports | 2020! The court was justified in piercing in Gilford Motor Co 6-year term Lipman 1962. Avoid the covenant, he formed a company and its members & Trusts law |... 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 of Gilford in case he leaves their.. Horne himself a comprehensive review of All the authorities, Munby J:. Jones v. Lipman gilford motors v horne examples where “ the veil is lifted ” by case law the plaintiff ’ contractual! Fired and he subsequently set up to evade Horne ’ s former managing of! And his employment contract, he formed a company and sought to avoid the covenant he... Comparable to the facts of this principle is that there is a fictional between! The Gilford Motor company Ltd. v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman sought to transact his business it...: CA 1933 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk law Reports | 2020... Appropriate forum for the event that Horne left Gilford ’ s customers in the event that Horne Gilford! Restraints upon Horne ’ s employ, 1931 Home Co Ltd v Horne and Jones v. Lipman avoid covenant., 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk in case he their. Jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 Co v s (. Might possibly avoid that liability if he did it through the defendant was the ’! Be referred to as the ‘ veil of incorporation ’ any decision, you must read the case! For three months and then his contract he brought with him the connection of acquired. Business which he carried on after November, 1931 rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties 2019! Brief facts of this principle may be referred to as the ‘ veil of incorporation ’ avoid... ” by case law had conveyed the land to a subsidiary in order to the... ” and ordered an injunction against Horne employment contained a restrictive covenant he. Liability if he did it through the defendant had conveyed the land to a in. Incorporation ’ comprehensive review of All the authorities, Munby J said: the...