\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}

% Packages
\usepackage{fancyhdr}           % For header and footer
\usepackage{multicol}           % Allows multicols in tables
\usepackage{tabularx}           % Intelligent column widths
\usepackage{tabulary}           % Used in header and footer
\usepackage{hhline}             % Border under tables
\usepackage{graphicx}           % For images
\usepackage{xcolor}             % For hex colours
%\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}    % For unicode character support
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}        % Without this we get weird character replacements
\usepackage{colortbl}           % For coloured tables
\usepackage{setspace}           % For line height
\usepackage{lastpage}           % Needed for total page number
\usepackage{seqsplit}           % Splits long words.
%\usepackage{opensans}          % Can't make this work so far. Shame. Would be lovely.
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}     % For underlining links
% Most of the following are not required for the majority
% of cheat sheets but are needed for some symbol support.
\usepackage{amsmath}            % Symbols
\usepackage{MnSymbol}           % Symbols
\usepackage{wasysym}            % Symbols
%\usepackage[english,german,french,spanish,italian]{babel}              % Languages

% Document Info
\author{daniya (daniya)}
\pdfinfo{
  /Title (company-law-veil-lifting.pdf)
  /Creator (Cheatography)
  /Author (daniya (daniya))
  /Subject (Company Law | Veil Lifting Cheat Sheet)
}

% Lengths and widths
\addtolength{\textwidth}{6cm}
\addtolength{\textheight}{-1cm}
\addtolength{\hoffset}{-3cm}
\addtolength{\voffset}{-2cm}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2cm} % Space between columns
\setlength{\headsep}{-12pt} % Reduce space between header and content
\setlength{\headheight}{85pt} % If less, LaTeX automatically increases it
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt} % Remove footer line
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} % Remove header line
\renewcommand{\seqinsert}{\ifmmode\allowbreak\else\-\fi} % Hyphens in seqsplit
% This two commands together give roughly
% the right line height in the tables
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\onehalfspacing

% Commands
\newcommand{\SetRowColor}[1]{\noalign{\gdef\RowColorName{#1}}\rowcolor{\RowColorName}} % Shortcut for row colour
\newcommand{\mymulticolumn}[3]{\multicolumn{#1}{>{\columncolor{\RowColorName}}#2}{#3}} % For coloured multi-cols
\newcolumntype{x}[1]{>{\raggedright}p{#1}} % New column types for ragged-right paragraph columns
\newcommand{\tn}{\tabularnewline} % Required as custom column type in use

% Font and Colours
\definecolor{HeadBackground}{HTML}{333333}
\definecolor{FootBackground}{HTML}{666666}
\definecolor{TextColor}{HTML}{333333}
\definecolor{DarkBackground}{HTML}{A31D2F}
\definecolor{LightBackground}{HTML}{F9F0F2}
\renewcommand{\familydefault}{\sfdefault}
\color{TextColor}

% Header and Footer
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyhead{} % Set header to blank
\fancyfoot{} % Set footer to blank
\fancyhead[L]{
\noindent
\begin{multicols}{3}
\begin{tabulary}{5.8cm}{C}
    \SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
    \vspace{-7pt}
    {\parbox{\dimexpr\textwidth-2\fboxsep\relax}{\noindent
        \hspace*{-6pt}\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{/web/www.cheatography.com/public/images/cheatography_logo.pdf}}
    }
\end{tabulary}
\columnbreak
\begin{tabulary}{11cm}{L}
    \vspace{-2pt}\large{\bf{\textcolor{DarkBackground}{\textrm{Company Law | Veil Lifting Cheat Sheet}}}} \\
    \normalsize{by \textcolor{DarkBackground}{daniya (daniya)} via \textcolor{DarkBackground}{\uline{cheatography.com/183845/cs/38385/}}}
\end{tabulary}
\end{multicols}}

\fancyfoot[L]{ \footnotesize
\noindent
\begin{multicols}{3}
\begin{tabulary}{5.8cm}{LL}
  \SetRowColor{FootBackground}
  \mymulticolumn{2}{p{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{Cheatographer}}  \\
  \vspace{-2pt}daniya (daniya) \\
  \uline{cheatography.com/daniya} \\
  \end{tabulary}
\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabulary}{5.8cm}{L}
  \SetRowColor{FootBackground}
  \mymulticolumn{1}{p{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{Cheat Sheet}}  \\
   \vspace{-2pt}Not Yet Published.\\
   Updated 27th April, 2023.\\
   Page {\thepage} of \pageref{LastPage}.
\end{tabulary}
\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabulary}{5.8cm}{L}
  \SetRowColor{FootBackground}
  \mymulticolumn{1}{p{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{Sponsor}}  \\
  \SetRowColor{white}
  \vspace{-5pt}
  %\includegraphics[width=48px,height=48px]{dave.jpeg}
  Measure your website readability!\\
  www.readability-score.com
\end{tabulary}
\end{multicols}}




\begin{document}
\raggedright
\raggedcolumns

% Set font size to small. Switch to any value
% from this page to resize cheat sheet text:
% www.emerson.emory.edu/services/latex/latex_169.html
\footnotesize % Small font.

\begin{multicols*}{3}

\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{summary of facts}}  \tn
% Row 0
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- briefly state case facts} \tn 
% Row Count 1 (+ 1)
% Row 1
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- mention issues at hand} \tn 
% Row Count 2 (+ 1)
% Row 2
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- topics to which question relates} \tn 
% Row Count 3 (+ 1)
\hhline{>{\arrayrulecolor{DarkBackground}}-}
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{general law}}  \tn
% Row 0
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{Pursuant to the general principle elucidated in {\bf{Saloman v. Saloman}}, {\bf{{\emph{X}}}}may encounter issues in holding {\bf{{\emph{Y}}}} liable as regards the concept of limited liability. Such flows from that of Separate Legal Personality (SLP) established in the seminal case of Saloman which elucidates, in essence, that an incorporated company is a recognized legal person with its own SLP - entirely divorced from its shareholders \& employees. In continuation of the principle, the undertakings of a subsidiary also cannot generally be associated as actions taken by the parent (ABC company). Given that in the aforementioned situation, the XXX activities were undertaken by {\bf{{\emph{Z}}}} rather than {\bf{{\emph{Y}}}} (the entity in contract with {\bf{{\emph{X}}}}), the terms of the sale contract appear to remain adhered to. Hence, {\bf{{\emph{X}}}} cannot undertake legal actions against {\bf{{\emph{Y}}}} or its subsidiary {\bf{{\emph{Z}}}} as they are both to be regarded as separate legal persons in the eyes of the law.} \tn 
% Row Count 20 (+ 20)
% Row 1
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{In consideration of such, {\bf{{\emph{X}}}} may only be able to attain redress by bringing an action against {\bf{{\emph{Z}}}} for the liability of {\bf{{\emph{Y}}}}  via lifting the corporate veil which exist between the two and imposing liability upon its shareholders (members). However, to lift said veil; which distinguishes between a company as a SPL and its members; OG must first succeed in persuading the court to 'lift the corporate veil'.  It may be pertinent to note here that as {\bf{{\emph{Z}}}} is not currently under any threat of insolvent liquidation, statutory veil lifting is inapplicable. As such the foregoing discussion shall deliberate upon judicial means of veil lifting.} \tn 
% Row Count 34 (+ 14)
\hhline{>{\arrayrulecolor{DarkBackground}}-}
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{veil lifting}}  \tn
% Row 0
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{'Lifting' the veil may encompass a wider range of circumstances where liability is imposed on members or directors or the veil is looked through, including occasions where the Salomon  principle remains intact.} \tn 
% Row Count 5 (+ 5)
% Row 1
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{in an attempt to circumvent situations of fraud, it at time proves necessary to lift the veil of incorporation - which would impose a liability upon the officers and owners of the company} \tn 
% Row Count 9 (+ 4)
% Row 2
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\} {\emph{veil lifting may be observed via statutory or judicial approaches}}} \tn 
% Row Count 11 (+ 2)
\hhline{>{\arrayrulecolor{DarkBackground}}-}
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{statutory veil lifting}}  \tn
% Row 0
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{ONLY APPLIES WHEN COMPANY IS IN INSOLVENT LIQUIDATION} \tn 
% Row Count 2 (+ 2)
% Row 1
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{UNCOMMON \& usually impose additional liability rather than ignoring separate personality} \tn 
% Row Count 4 (+ 2)
% Row 2
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{ac\}\} {\bf{FRAUDULENT TRADING}}} \tn 
% Row Count 5 (+ 1)
% Row 3
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{defined u/s. 213, Insolvency Act, 1986 - civil liability for fraudulent trading} \tn 
% Row Count 7 (+ 2)
% Row 4
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} at the time of closing/ winding up of company} \tn 
% Row Count 9 (+ 2)
% Row 5
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} appears that business carried out with intent to: {\bf{(a)}} defraud creditors of company, {\bf{(b)}} creditors in general or {\bf{(c)}} for any other fraudulent purpose} \tn 
% Row Count 13 (+ 4)
% Row 6
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} any person' knowingly party to this act is liable - includes ALL officers \& members} \tn 
% Row Count 16 (+ 3)
% Row 7
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Re Todd}} - D committed fraud to company, had to contribute to debts upon liquidation} \tn 
% Row Count 18 (+ 2)
% Row 8
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Re Patrick \& Lyon}} - fraud involoves proving actual dishonesty, involving real moral blame upon commercial men} \tn 
% Row Count 21 (+ 3)
% Row 9
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-exclamation\}\} very high threshold} \tn 
% Row Count 22 (+ 1)
% Row 10
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\}  b/c if fraud proven u/s. 213, very likely s.992 of Companies Act, 2006 will also be imposed -{}-{}- which incurs CRIMINAL LIABILITY} \tn 
% Row Count 25 (+ 3)
% Row 11
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Morphitis v Bernasconi}} - issue whether  failing to pay  instalment to landlord enough to discharge s.213} \tn 
% Row Count 28 (+ 3)
% Row 12
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-exclamation\}\} Not every fraudulent transaction makes business one carried on with intent to defraud} \tn 
% Row Count 31 (+ 3)
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{statutory veil lifting (cont)}}  \tn
% Row 13
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-exclamation\}\} must be a causal connection/ nexus between the fraud and the loss} \tn 
% Row Count 2 (+ 2)
% Row 14
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{ac\}\} {\bf{WRONGFUL/NEGLIGENT TRADING}}} \tn 
% Row Count 3 (+ 1)
% Row 15
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{implemented to remedy difficulties of imposing s.213} \tn 
% Row Count 5 (+ 2)
% Row 16
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{courts can lift veil if:} \tn 
% Row Count 6 (+ 1)
% Row 17
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{counter\}\} D knew/ ought to have concluded WHILE CONDUCTING BUINESS BEFORE LIQUIDATION} \tn 
% Row Count 8 (+ 2)
% Row 18
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{counter\}\} about real prospect of company not avoiding insolvent liquidation (insolvency)} \tn 
% Row Count 10 (+ 2)
% Row 19
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{counter\}\} only applies upon Ds -{}- INCLUDES SHADOW Ds} \tn 
% Row Count 12 (+ 2)
% Row 20
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Re Produce Marketing}} - Ds continued to run business after knowing it had reached the point of no-return - liable to pay company's debts after insolvent liquidation} \tn 
% Row Count 16 (+ 4)
% Row 21
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Re Road Gunner Organization}} - no proof of wrongdoing but negligence element present} \tn 
% Row Count 18 (+ 2)
\hhline{>{\arrayrulecolor{DarkBackground}}-}
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{judicial veil lifting}}  \tn
% Row 0
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{IF STATUTORY VEIL LIFTING IS INAPPLICABLE, RELIANCE UPON COMMON LAW RULES} \tn 
% Row Count 2 (+ 2)
% Row 1
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\emph{In the given scenario, firstly, I shall assess the 'single economic unit' and 'mere façade' grounds, and then consider the use of agency, tort, or other means to avoid (rather than pierce) veil. }}} \tn 
% Row Count 6 (+ 4)
% Row 2
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{ac\}\} {\bf{MERE FACADE}}} \tn 
% Row Count 7 (+ 1)
% Row 3
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{initially, common law rules were very uncertain} \tn 
% Row Count 8 (+ 1)
% Row 4
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{will only occur due to (1) POLICY REASONS (2) COMPANY WAS OPERATING AS A MERE FACADE (FRAUD)} \tn 
% Row Count 10 (+ 2)
% Row 5
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- multiple cases arose before courts but {\bf{{\emph{Adams v. Cape Industries}}}} recognised no clear defination was provided} \tn 
% Row Count 13 (+ 3)
% Row 6
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} defination since clarified in {\bf{{\emph{Prest v. Petrodale}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 15 (+ 2)
% Row 7
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Prest v. Petrodale}} - exisitng legal obligation delibrately evaded NOT CONCEALED ({\bf{{\emph{Rossendale v Hurstwood (2021)}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 18 (+ 3)
% Row 8
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Woolfson v. Strathclyde}} - requirement of company being used as a mere façade concealing true facts ({\bf{{\emph{VTB v Nurtitek}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 21 (+ 3)
% Row 9
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- seems impropriety in company operations required} \tn 
% Row Count 22 (+ 1)
% Row 10
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} using SLP to push liability onto another member of a group not impropriety ({\bf{{\emph{Prest}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 25 (+ 3)
% Row 11
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Trustor v. Smallbone}} - must be a connection between impropriety \& use of corporate form ({\bf{{\emph{Prest}}}} - statute not to be used as vehicle for fruad)} \tn 
% Row Count 29 (+ 4)
% Row 12
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- motivation behind INITIAL incorporation importance - if corporate form used to evade existing liability, veil lifted} \tn 
% Row Count 32 (+ 3)
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{judicial veil lifting (cont)}}  \tn
% Row 13
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-exclamation\}\} HOWEVER, initial formation not important anymore ({\bf{{\emph{Ben Hashem v. Ali Shayif}}}}) ({\bf{{\emph{VTB v. Nutritek}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 3 (+ 3)
% Row 14
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Jones v. Lipman}} - land sold by individual who later transferred title to his incorporated company to avoid sale. veil lifted} \tn 
% Row Count 6 (+ 3)
% Row 15
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} acc. to Salomon, company is SLP and cannot be sued but veil was lifted, held it was being used as a vehicle for fraud/ used as a mere facade} \tn 
% Row Count 10 (+ 4)
% Row 16
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Trustor v. Smallbone}} - use of company to hide misappropriated money} \tn 
% Row Count 12 (+ 2)
% Row 17
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Re Bugle Press}} - abuse of legislation} \tn 
% Row Count 13 (+ 1)
% Row 18
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{ac\}\} {\bf{SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT}}} \tn 
% Row Count 14 (+ 1)
% Row 19
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- where 1 company owns all issued share capital in other companies - such is known as 'wholly owned subsidaries; defined u/s. 1159 CA, 2006} \tn 
% Row Count 17 (+ 3)
% Row 20
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\} {\emph{strict application of Salomon to this principle would make parent company, in theory, untouchable by law for abused by subsidiary due to limited liability}}} \tn 
% Row Count 21 (+ 4)
% Row 21
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{- L. Denning in {\bf{{\emph{DHN v. IRC}}}} - Consider the group structure as a 'single economic unit'} \tn 
% Row Count 23 (+ 2)
% Row 22
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} disapproved by HoL in {\bf{{\emph{Woolfson v Strathclyde}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 25 (+ 2)
% Row 23
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Re a Company}} - veil will be 'pierced' if necessary to achieve justice ( also disapproved by HoL)} \tn 
% Row Count 27 (+ 2)
% Row 24
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} Lowry disapproved interventionist approach, saying it will lead to uncertainty about safety of incorporation - use of policy to remove legal principles not welcomed} \tn 
% Row Count 31 (+ 4)
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{judicial veil lifting (cont)}}  \tn
% Row 25
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{{\emph{Gallagher}}}} - neg. impact of veil lifting on other legal aspects (Director Duties, individual tax principles, Foss v Hartbottle rule)} \tn 
% Row Count 3 (+ 3)
% Row 26
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{ac\}\} {\bf{CURRENT AUTHORITY - ADAMS v.CAPE INDUSTRIES}}*} \tn 
% Row Count 5 (+ 2)
% Row 27
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{Facts: Cape (UK based company) held multiple subsidiaries, some of which operated in US. Cape denied enforcement of ruling by US courts against its subsidiaries (jurisdiction).} \tn 
% Row Count 9 (+ 4)
% Row 28
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{UK courts held US judgement to only be enforceable if Cape was present in US or had taken part in US proceedings (neither was true)} \tn 
% Row Count 12 (+ 3)
% Row 29
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{Adams sought to lift veil to show that Cape was present in US through its subsidaries} \tn 
% Row Count 14 (+ 2)
% Row 30
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{COURTS HELD -{}-{}-{}-- on what grounds should NOT veil be lifted} \tn 
% Row Count 16 (+ 2)
% Row 31
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} Denied Re A Company - lifting to avoid injustice} \tn 
% Row Count 18 (+ 2)
% Row 32
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} Denied DHN - 'single economic unit'} \tn 
% Row Count 20 (+ 2)
% Row 33
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{{\emph{ACCEPTED GROUNDS}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 21 (+ 1)
% Row 34
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{counter\}\}. {\bf{mere façade concealing true facts}} - to avoid pre-existing obligation ({\bf{{\emph{Jones v. Lipman}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 24 (+ 3)
% Row 35
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{counter\}\}. {\bf{single economic entity}} - where upon  proper reading of a CONTRACT or STATUE, appears that multiple companies in a group are being treated as one ({\bf{{\emph{Beckett Investment v Hall}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 28 (+ 4)
% Row 36
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} however, given the limited scope of this ground, the veil remains largely 'opaque and impassable' ({\bf{{\emph{Adams}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 31 (+ 3)
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{judicial veil lifting (cont)}}  \tn
% Row 37
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Raja v Van Hoogstraten}} - recent shift of courts from narrow approach} \tn 
% Row Count 2 (+ 2)
% Row 38
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{counter\}\}. {\bf{agency principle}} -  an arrangement in which one entity legally appoints another to act on its behalf ( principle-agent relation)} \tn 
% Row Count 5 (+ 3)
% Row 39
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} express - through agreement or contract} \tn 
% Row Count 7 (+ 2)
% Row 40
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} implied - observance of daily transactions} \tn 
% Row Count 9 (+ 2)
% Row 41
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Smith, Stone \& Knight}} - criteria for agency established (profits, director, shareholders , constant control)} \tn 
% Row Count 12 (+ 3)
% Row 42
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Millam v Print Factory}} - passes where attribution of high level of control by parent} \tn 
% Row Count 14 (+ 2)
% Row 43
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\} subsidiary must be incapable of independent action ({\bf{{\emph{Re FG (Films)}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 16 (+ 2)
% Row 44
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\} agency can't be presumed from closeness of operations between parent \& subsidiary ({\bf{{\emph{Yukong Line v Rendsburg}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 19 (+ 3)
% Row 45
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{{\emph{EXCEPTIONS TO ADAMS}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 20 (+ 1)
% Row 46
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Creasey v. Breachwood Motors}} - veil disregarded where common directorship + membership AND assets transferred b/w 2 w/o Ds considering their duties as such} \tn 
% Row Count 24 (+ 4)
% Row 47
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{fa-asterisk\}\} overruled in {\bf{{\emph{Ord v. Bellhaven Pubs}}}} - reorganization of sister companies for legitimate reason is not mere façade (motive of Ds to be considered)} \tn 
% Row Count 28 (+ 4)
% Row 48
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Prest v. Petrodel}} - where company under existing legal obligations deliberately evades it (Evasion)  enforcement of obligation is deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under another company's control (Concealment) -{}-{}-{}- VERY LIMITED  APPLICATION} \tn 
% Row Count 34 (+ 6)
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{judicial veil lifting (cont)}}  \tn
% Row 49
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\} {\bf{{\emph{Raja v Van Hoogstraten}}}} - shift from narrow approach, veil lifted even if formation of company was genuine} \tn 
% Row Count 3 (+ 3)
% Row 50
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{ac\}\} {\bf{TORT}}} \tn 
% Row Count 4 (+ 1)
% Row 51
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{tortious liability  against member (or director) for activities carried out through medium of the company has possibility of negating {\bf{{\emph{Salomon}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 7 (+ 3)
% Row 52
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Godwin v Shell}} - however, courts generally hesitant to impose such on potential of damaging SLP principle ({\bf{{\emph{Thompson v Renwick}}}} - criteria for establishing tortious liability, following ruling of {\bf{{\emph{Caparo v. Dickman}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 12 (+ 5)
% Row 53
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} parent \& subsidiary in the same principle line of business -{}-{}- NO DUTY IF PARENT NOT DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN SAME ACTIVITY {[}purely holding company{]} ({\bf{{\emph{Thompson}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 16 (+ 4)
% Row 54
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} parent controlled subsidiary in matters related to commission of tort (proximity)} \tn 
% Row Count 18 (+ 2)
% Row 55
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} parent  knew/ought to have known subsidiary's actions risked injury} \tn 
% Row Count 20 (+ 2)
% Row 56
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-asterisk\}\}  {\emph{if proven, is it fair, just \& reasonable to impose duty}}} \tn 
% Row Count 22 (+ 2)
% Row 57
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{{\emph{negligence}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 23 (+ 1)
% Row 58
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Chandler v. Cape}} - specific intervention by parent/// parallel DoC b/w parent \& subsidiary employees and subsidiary \& its employees -{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}--assumption of responsibility by the parent over health and safety policy at subsidiary created special relationship b/w employee and parent, giving rise to DoC. Damages payable} \tn 
% Row Count 30 (+ 7)
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}

\vfill
\columnbreak
\begin{tabularx}{5.377cm}{X}
\SetRowColor{DarkBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\bf\textcolor{white}{judicial veil lifting (cont)}}  \tn
% Row 59
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-exclamation\}\} {\bf{Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell (2021)}} - courts seemed to move away from Chandler, now holding parent liable for tort of misfeasance (SUFFICIENT intervention by parent in subsidiary's operations)} \tn 
% Row Count 5 (+ 5)
% Row 60
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{\{\{fa-caret-right\}\} reinforces position set out in {\bf{{\emph{Vedanta v. Lungowe}}}} regarding the flexibility of the English courts' jurisdiction over parent company liability claims} \tn 
% Row Count 9 (+ 4)
% Row 61
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{Lubbe v. Cape}} - tortious liability applicable on non-employee victims too ({\bf{{\emph{Lungowe v. Vedanta}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 12 (+ 3)
% Row 62
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{AAA v. Unilever}} - complete parent's control over subsidiary not required (like that in agency req.). Even advice given will suffice} \tn 
% Row Count 15 (+ 3)
% Row 63
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{{\bf{{\emph{economic loss due to negligent misstaement}}}}} \tn 
% Row Count 16 (+ 1)
% Row 64
\SetRowColor{white}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{D or employee of company PERSONALLY  be liable only if assumption of responsibility to create special relationship exists ({\emph{*}}William v. NLHF} \tn 
% Row Count 19 (+ 3)
% Row 65
\SetRowColor{LightBackground}
\mymulticolumn{1}{x{5.377cm}}{if tort of deceit involved, liability will flow to D or employee ({\bf{{\emph{SCB v. Pakistan NSC}}}}) ({\bf{{\emph{Barclay v. Waypharm}}}})} \tn 
% Row Count 22 (+ 3)
\hhline{>{\arrayrulecolor{DarkBackground}}-}
\end{tabularx}
\par\addvspace{1.3em}


% That's all folks
\end{multicols*}

\end{document}