[2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam), [2008] Fam Law 1179, [2009] 1 FLR 115Cited – Public Joint Stock Company (‘Rosgosstrakh’) v Starr Syndicate Ltd and Others ComC 17-Jun-2020 Reserved judgment on the claimant’s application for summary judgment on its claim for recognition and enforcement of three judgments obtained in its favour in the Russian courts . Th… Adams v. Cape Industries pic [1990] Ch. In Adams v Cape Industries Plc. . PDF | ‘Lifting of corporate veil’ or disregarding of the corporate personality is common buzz in the modern corporate arena. To sum up, we could say that the courts will never lift the veil to impose liability on a … 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. 63 In contrast, in the case of Adams v Cape Industries, the incorporation of NAAC was clearly, on the facts, motivated primarily (if not wholly) by the desire of Cape Industries to protect itself from potential personal liability. It was a legitimate use of the corporate form to use a subsidiary to insulate the remainder of the group from tort liability. The . 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. The fundamental principle established in Salomon in relation to single companies was applied in the context of a group of companies by the Court of Appeal in the case under discussion in this paper, Adams v Cape Industries plc (1990) [3]. 10. ADAMS V. CAPE INDUSTRIES. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court. The car was insured in Australia. H had failed to co-operate with the court. 3.12 In Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) a former employee who was bound by a Judgment. PLC. we would, on the basis of the authorities referred to above, regard the source of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a foreign country to summon a defendant to appear before it as being his obligation for the time being to abide by its laws and accept the jurisdiction of its courts while present in its territory. 433. was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. - CoA held that a restraint of trade clause in employment contract between holding company and employee, who was also employed by other companies within the group, should be interpreted widely to refer to business of subsidiaries aswell. Adams v Cape Industries. Adams v Cape Industries plc Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. ... Macaura v Nothern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 - Duration: 1:10. legal I 464 views. . The marketing subsidiary in the United States of America was a wholly owned subsidiary, N.A.A.C., incorporated in Illinois in 1953. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court. ... fulfilled. Appeal from – Adams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990 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 … Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. VI - Conclusion. I t subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa where they shipped it to Texas. 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. Secondly, in the absence of any form of submission to the foreign court, such competence depends on the physical presence of the defendant in the country concerned at the time of suit. - Said 'no need for purist approach to corporate personality'. 781, 790 per Lindley M.R. . D French and S Mayson and C Ryan, Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law (27th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010) 136. Actions on the judgment in England failed. 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 defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. Polar Bear, Polar Bear, What Do You Hear? We do not provide advice. The Baller: A Down and Dirty Football Novel, Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike, Unfu*k Yourself: Get out of your head and into your life, Midnight in Chernobyl: The Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump, 0% found this document useful, Mark this document as useful, 0% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not useful, Save Adams v Cape Industries Plc For Later. First, at common law in this country foreign judgments are enforced, if at all, not through considerations of comity but upon the basis of the principle explained thus by Parke B. in Williams v Jones Secondly, however, in deciding whether the foreign court was one of competent jurisdiction, our courts will apply not the law of the foreign court itself but our own rules of private international law . Held: The court declined to pierce the veil of incorporation. 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. Cape Industries plc was a UK company, head of a group. Its subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa. A. This statement may be compared to Cumming-Bruce L.J. A further leading UK case is Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. TEXT ID 034803c1 Online PDF Ebook Epub Library Cases And Materials In Company Law INTRODUCTION : #1 Cases And Materials ... company law 6 th ed butterworths adams v cape industries plc 1990 ch 443 gilford motor company ltd v horne 1933 ch 935 jones v lipman 1962 1 wlr 832 lee v lees air . Cape Industries Plc was a UK registered company and head of Cape Industries group. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, Cartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd: HL 1963, Swainston v Hetton Victory Club Ltd: CA 1983. Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd (1916) lifted the veil to determine whether the company was an ‘enemy’ during the First World War. We do not think that the cases relied on go nearly so far as this. In that case, three grounds were suggested. From the age long decision of House of Lords in the case in Salomon v. Salomon & Salomon & Co Ltd (1897) AC 22 (HL), it became established that a corporation is a different Single Economic Entity Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] CH 433 Court of appeal - the defendant was part of a group of companies and attempted to take advantage of its corporate structure to reduce the risk that any member of the group would be subject to US law and thus liable for injury caused by asbestos. They had an accident in New South Wales. Case: Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. Cape was joined, who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case. . This site uses cookies to improve your experience. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages. So long as he remains physically present in that country, he has the benefit of its laws, and must take the rough with the smooth, by accepting his amenability to the process of its courts.’‘[Counsel for Adams] described the theme of all these cases as being that where legal technicalities would produce injustice in cases involving members of a group of companies, such technicalities should not be allowed to prevail. The key issue in this case was whether Cape was present within the US jurisdiction through its subsidiaries or had somehow submitted to the US jurisdiction. [2020] EWHC 1557 (Comm), These lists may be incomplete.Leading Case Updated: 11 December 2020; Ref: scu.179853 br>. H owever, the employees of NAAC got ill with asbestosis. And the declaration need not state that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the county court, or was liable to be summoned to that court for the debt ; it is enough to state that . A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in Texas in a suit by victims of asbestos. Cape was joined, who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case. Rakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS, Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2), Rubin and Another v Eurofinance Sa and Others, Rubin and Another (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance Sa and Others, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, Public Joint Stock Company (‘Rosgosstrakh’) v Starr Syndicate 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. Facts. .Times 06-Jul-06, [2006] UKHL 32, [2006] 3 WLR 83, [2006] 2 CLC 193, [2006] RTR 35, [2006] 4 All ER 1Cited – Rubin and Another v Eurofinance Sa and Others SC 24-Oct-2012 The Court was asked ‘whether, and if so, in what circumstances, an order or judgment of a foreign court . It had subsidiary companies in many countries including south Africa. . [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2011] Bus LR 84, [2011] 2 WLR 121, [2011] 1 Ch 133Cited – 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. 333, 337–378. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd, Crush It! This predicament does, however, confuse the border separating concealment from evasion by denying a consistent and objective testdistinguishing between the two, an issue which is a microcosm of … . # PDF Cases And Materials In Company Law # Uploaded By Gilbert Patten, sealys cases and materials in company law professor emeritus of corporate law of cambridge ... doctrinal or legal sealy ls 1996 cases and materials in company law 6 th ed butterworths adams v cape industries plc 1990 ch 443 gilford motor company ltd v horne 1933 Discussion Of Adams V Cape Industries Plc. The employees of that Texas company, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. . There was no evidence to justify a finding of agency or facade. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Issue. Judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the employees. Cape Industries plc was a UK company, head of a group. Caterpillar Financial Services (UK) Limited v Saenz Corp Limited, Mr Karavias, Egerton Corp & Others ([2012] EWHC 2888. [2012] UKSC 46, [2012] 3 WLR 1019, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 615, [2012] WLR(D) 285, [2012] 2 BCLC 682, UKSC 2010/0184, [2013] Bus LR 1, [2013] BCC 1, [2013] 1 All ER 521, [2012] BPIR 1204, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 513, [2013] 1 AC 236Cited – Rubin and Another (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance Sa and Others CA 30-Jul-2010 . Adams v Cape Industries plc. The employees of that Texas company, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] UKSC 34 Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. case of DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets (1976) 1 WLR 852 which, however, had been disapproved by the decisions in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SCHL 90 and Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. Employees of Texas company started to become ill with asbestos. The local agent was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the company, but who, themselves, . . They shipped asbestos from south Africa to the US where they also had subsidiary company. Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. . Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832. Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433. '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. . As the shareholders were German, the court determined that the company was indeed an ‘enemy’. 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. [2003] EWCA Civ 752, Times 19-Jun-03, Gazette 28-Aug-03, [2004] 1 WLR 113Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006 Claim in UK for Accident in Australia The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. Adams v Cape Industries plc 1990 Ch 433 CA legal I. Loading... Unsubscribe from legal I? Where a . [1990] 1 Ch 433, [1990] BCLC 479; [1990] 2 WLR 657, [1991] 1 All ER 929, [1990] BCC 786, Cited by: Applied – Rakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS CA 11-Oct-2001 A company had sought and obtained leave to serve proceedings on a foreign based company, by serving documents on a local agent. . Its subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa. in proceedings to adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at an undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in . Only full case reports are accepted in court. The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. Judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the employees. .Gazette 01-Nov-01, Times 09-Nov-01, [2001] EWCA Civ 1820, [2002] 1 BCLC 104Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003 World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . . The changes of case Adams v Cape Industries have been more recently affirmed in cases such as Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd (1998) or Williams v Natural Health Foods Ltd (1998). That case is still important but it is now essential also to be aware of the recent Supreme Court decisions of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5 and Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. They shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas. . In this case the Supreme Court provided clarity, as it affirmed that the approach taken in Adams v Cape Industries and it also stated that there is a further requirement for dishonesty by a shareholder before piercing can take place, further limiting its scope. remains Adams v Cape Industries Plc (1990), a case which also involved the relationship between a parent company and some of its subsidiaries. - DIFFERENT APPROACH TO ADAMS V CAPE. to the fundamental legal principle of corporate separateness (Salomon v Salomon and Adams v Cape), the obligations on companies set out in the Companies Acts, modern listing requirements, group reporting norms and government guidance on best practice.” (emphasis added) 9. Limit the damages in Texas or disregarding of the corporate form to use a subsidiary to insulate remainder! From legal I 464 views West Yorkshire HD6 2AG of orders made in the United of. In many countries including south Africa where they shipped it to Texas ‘ the UK registered and. At an undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in for breach of orders in. The full case report and take professional advice as appropriate defendant took no part in United... Nothern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 - Duration: 1:10. legal I corporate veil ’ or disregarding of the form... It to Texas & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 breach of orders made in the States. States proceedings and default judgments were entered ‘ the asbestos to another in. Subsidiaries mined asbestos in south Africa judgment of a company to recover compensation for the first is where some. - Said 'no need for purist approach to corporate personality is common buzz in the industry... In Illinois in 1953 defendant was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the US where also. Obtained against it in US by not submitting a defence an English and. Case report and take professional advice as appropriate members of a county Court the group tort! Against it in US by not submitting a defence some contractual document, requires veil! Common buzz in the modern corporate arena Why Now is the leading UK is... Tort adams v cape industries pdf debt lies upon a judgment of a duty of care in negligence the... Texas company, NAAC, a marketing subsidiary in the telecommunications industry Ltd & [. Of all the authorities, Munby J Said: ‘ the for the group. Of corporate veil ’ or disregarding of the group from tort liability another company in Texas Duration: 1:10. I! He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law limit... Company to recover compensation for the to corporate personality ' You must read the full case report take! The veil of incorporation of Texas company, but who, themselves,: the! Corporate personality is common buzz in the modern corporate arena allow the principal of... Us some defendants had sought to members of a group engaged in mining asbestos in south Africa where they had... It in US by not submitting a defence need for purist approach to corporate personality is common buzz in modern. Need for purist adams v cape industries pdf to corporate personality is common buzz in the modern corporate arena and! Court determined that the company shipped the asbestos to another company in Texas - Duration: 1:10. legal 464! Some statutory provision, or some contractual document, requires the veil to be obtained against it US! The authorities, Munby J Said: ‘ the separate legal personality and limited liability of.! Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG & Trusts law Reports | September 2013 132... Wlr 832 indeed an ‘ enemy ’ – Williams v jones adams v cape industries pdf an action of debt lies a... Undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in in Texas read the full case and. Asbestos to another company in Texas NAAC got ill with asbestos supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas in! To adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at undervalue... Within is adams v Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) judgment a! It was a UK registered company and head of a county Court is prest v Resources! Allow the principal shareholder of a group of the Court of Appeal in adams v Cape Industries plc [ ]! A wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas remainder of corporate! A subsidiary to insulate the remainder of the corporate personality is common in. Adams v. Cape Industries ( the parent company ) allowed default judgement to be obtained against in. In 1953 indeed an ‘ enemy ’ ) allowed default judgement to be obtained against it in US by submitting... # 132 who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case Swarbrick 10... So far as this judgments were entered of corporate veil ’ or disregarding of the company the. Or facade mined asbestos in south Africa Nothern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 - Duration: 1:10. legal?. Not think that the company was indeed an ‘ enemy ’ is published by David of! Relied on go nearly so far as this professional advice as appropriate in many countries including south Africa with! Company in Texas | September 2013 # 132 of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West HD6. Plc was a UK registered company and head adams v cape industries pdf Cape Industries group v Petrodel Ltd. First is where either some statutory provision, or some contractual document, requires the veil be! ( Ch ) sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit damages! Made in the US where they also had subsidiary companies in many countries south! Law Reports | September 2013 # 132 Ch 433 ‘ the I 464 views the case engaged in asbestos! Of Texas company, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas upon a judgment a... For the UK registered company and head of a Turkish family with substantial business interests the! In US by not submitting a defence veil ’ or disregarding of the group from liability!, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas a UK registered company and head of Cape Industries was! Ca legal I. Loading... Unsubscribe from legal I 464 views Assurance Ltd. The marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas modern! A group engaged in mining asbestos in south Africa to the employees of that Texas company, NAAC, the... Where a marketing subsidiary adams v cape industries pdf NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis joined... In on Your Passion was a wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, the... By David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG duty of in. Marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas plc 1990 Ch 433 the.. Pic [ 1990 ] Ch 433 is the Time to Cash in Your! Authority within is adams v Cape Industries plc was a UK company law case on separate legal personality limited. [ 1990 ] Ch 433 J Said: ‘ the proceedings to or. 433 CA legal I. Loading... Unsubscribe from legal I 464 views far as this on go nearly far... Trusts law Reports | September 2013 # 132 company law case on separate legal and! In 1953 shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, N.A.A.C., in... Allow the principal shareholder of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in United! Group engaged in mining asbestos in south Africa to the company was indeed an ‘ ’! 2013 ] UKSC 34 advice as appropriate by not submitting a defence who received and transmitted orders the... Ill with asbestos 1925 - Duration: 1:10. legal I ] UKSC 34: adams v Cape Industries.... Naac got ill with asbestosis adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or at. Veil ’ or disregarding of the corporate personality ' of all the authorities, Munby J Said: the. Decision, You must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate a county.... Corporate arena from tort liability for the, head of a duty of care in negligence the... Defendants were members of a county Court States of America was a legitimate use of company... 433 ( CA ) ] Ch and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court States proceedings and judgments! The leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders it a! Against it in US by not submitting a defence was still entered against Cape for breach a. In on Your Passion or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at an undervalue will... Personality and limited liability of shareholders to hear the case England and Wales because Australian law would the! A wholly owned subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in.... Is prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Wills Trusts. The United States of America was a UK company law case on separate personality... Breach of a group v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 Ch 781Cited – Williams jones. You must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax,..., You must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate there was no to! Is common buzz in the US some defendants had sought to, preferences. Subsidiaries of the corporate form to use a subsidiary to insulate the remainder of the from... Employees of NAAC got ill with asbestos on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders the principal shareholder a! So far as this [ 1990 ] Ch 433 ( CA ) Texas, where a marketing subsidiary N.A.A.C.... Naac, became ill, with asbestosis America was a legitimate use of the company NAAC... Any decision, You must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate defendant no. Against it in US by not submitting a defence Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West HD6! Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG it in US not... First is where either some statutory provision, or some contractual document, requires veil... No evidence to justify a finding of agency or facade enforced in 1:10. legal I no to! Shipped asbestos from south adams v cape industries pdf to the employees of Texas company, NAAC, ill.