14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

and reliable third party‟s opinion, that the company was solvent and would remain as<br />

such at the time the debt was incurred. 165<br />

<strong>The</strong> liability on the holding company is imposed only in respect <strong>of</strong> the knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />

its directors who are actively involved in its management. Thus, the holding<br />

company will escape liability if the directors who have knowledge <strong>of</strong> the insolvency<br />

<strong>of</strong> the subsidiary are those who are not actively involved in the management <strong>of</strong> the<br />

company due to illness or any other good reasons. 166 Finally, if the holding company<br />

has proven that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the subsidiary from<br />

incurring debts, then it will not be liable for the debts <strong>of</strong> its subsidiary. 167<br />

5.2.3.3.3 Common Law Approach<br />

In the absence <strong>of</strong> statutory provisions expressly dealing with the liability <strong>of</strong> holding<br />

company/directors in group <strong>of</strong> companies, reliance on the courts to provide<br />

guidelines continues. Courts grapple with the reality <strong>of</strong> the issue while at the same<br />

time trying to uphold the separate legal entity principle. 168 <strong>The</strong> courts have been<br />

inconsistent as to the circumstances when veil will be lifted, though fraud and<br />

business reality <strong>of</strong> the groups seem to be the most used. In D.H.N. Food<br />

Distributions Ltd v Tower Hamlets L.B.C, 169 the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal looked at the<br />

structures and the business reality <strong>of</strong> the group and decided they should be treated as<br />

one. 170<br />

165 Section 588X(3) <strong>of</strong> the Australian Corporations Act 2001.<br />

166 Section 588X(4) <strong>of</strong> the Australian Corporations Act 2001.<br />

167 Section 588X(5) <strong>of</strong> the Australian Corporations Act 2001.<br />

168 Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd<br />

[1983] 2 All E.R 563.<br />

169 [1976] 1 W.L.R. 852.<br />

170 Lord Denning M.R. stated at 860 “This group is virtually the same as a partnership in which all the<br />

three companies are partners. <strong>The</strong>y should not be treated separately so as to be defeated on a<br />

technical point…<strong>The</strong>y should not be deprived <strong>of</strong> the compensation which should justly be<br />

108

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!