Macaura V Northern Assurance
The owner of a timber estate sold all the timber to a company which was owned almost solely by him. He was the companys largest creditor.
Macaura V Northern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 Ac 619 Case Summary Explore Law Youtube
Indeed in Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd it is possible to see such application of the separate legal personality.
. He insured the timber against fire but in his own name. Thus Mr Macaura was the sole shareholder. This decision followed the much earlier case of Macaura v Northern Assurance 1925.
He decided to sell his timber estate to a company and in return he received almost all the shares of this company. In Mark Rowlands Ltd v Berni Inns Ltd 1986 1QB211 it was acknowledged that a tenant who pays an insurance premium to a landlord as part of the lease agreement does have an insurable interest in the building. Reassuming briefly the facts Mr Macaura owned a timber estate.
After the timber was destroyed by fire the. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person unless they have expressly or implicitly. Another variation is the relationship between landlord and tenant.
Members have no interest in a companys property. The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are as a general principle the responsibility of that company alone. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 AC 619.
Macaura Vs Northern Assurance Co Ltd Separate Property Youtube
Macaura V Northern Assurance Co Ltd Wikiwand
Case Law Company Corporate Personality Insurance Macaura V Northern Assurance Co 1925 Youtube
Company
Macaura V Nothern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 Youtube
Company
0 Response to "Macaura V Northern Assurance"
Post a Comment