Wallersteiner v Moir
Encyclopedia
Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil
.
s 54 and 190). He had got 80% of the company. Mr Moir was one of the 20% remainder shareholders. Wanting to expose Dr Wallersteiner’s various dealings, he circulated a letter to shareholders. Dr Wallersteiner sued for libel.
Lord Denning MR in a condemnatory judgment held that Dr Wallersteiner's delays were "intentional and contumelious", and the action for libel should be struck out. In the course of the conclusion he noted that various Liechtensteinian companies which Dr Wallersteiner held, could be accessed to get back the ill gotten gains, and he thought so on this basis. He went on,
Piercing the corporate veil
Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders or directors. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it...
.
Facts
Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company called Hartley Baird Ltd using money from the company itself, in contravention of the prohibitions on financial assistance (under Companies Act 1948Companies Act 1948
The Companies Act 1948 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which regulated UK company law. Its descendent is the Companies Act 2006.-Cases decided under this Act:*Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer...
s 54 and 190). He had got 80% of the company. Mr Moir was one of the 20% remainder shareholders. Wanting to expose Dr Wallersteiner’s various dealings, he circulated a letter to shareholders. Dr Wallersteiner sued for libel.
Judgment
Geoffrey Lane J at first instance struck out the claim for want of prosecution, as it was apparent that Dr Wallersteiner was just biding time. But he also entered judgment against Dr Wallersteiner. He appealed.Lord Denning MR in a condemnatory judgment held that Dr Wallersteiner's delays were "intentional and contumelious", and the action for libel should be struck out. In the course of the conclusion he noted that various Liechtensteinian companies which Dr Wallersteiner held, could be accessed to get back the ill gotten gains, and he thought so on this basis. He went on,
See also
- UK company law
- Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely...
[1975] QB 373, a successor case concerning a derivative claim that Dr Wallersteiner also lost