The liquidator and the other creditors objected to this, claiming that it was unfair for the person who formed and ran the company to get paid first.
However, the House of Lords held that the company was a different legal person from the shareholders, and thus Mr Salomon, as a shareholder and creditor, was totally separate in law from the company A Salomon & Co Ltd.
The ‘corporate veil’ surrounds the company of Murphy & Co Ltd and prevents outsiders challenging the operation of the company.
In this case, Mr Salomon was the major shareholder, a director, an employee and a creditor of the company he created.Macaura's case is depending upon the fact that Company whether private or public is distinct from his owner if he took the policy from insurance company at the name of company then he could claim for damages. Only Macaura’s company, as owner of the timber, which had the requisite insurable interest in it.Only the company, and not Macaura, could insure its property against loss or damage.It is quite common in Ireland for one person to have such a variety of roles and still be a different legal entity from the company. Lee formed his crop spraying business into a limited company in which he was director, shareholder and employee. Lee was self-employed and thus not covered by the legislation. Lee and the company he had formed were separate entities, and it was possible for Mr. The following case is similar to Salomon and Lee, but the principle of separate personality worked to the disadvantage of the plaintiff.
When he was killed in a flying accident, his widow sought social welfare compensation from the State, arguing that Mr. The defendant company was involved in legal proceedings but did not have enough money for legal representation.He had not transferred the insurance policy to the company. After the sale, Macaura continued to insure the plantation in his own name. When Macaura attempted to claim on the policy, the company refused to pay.