This article analyses the common law doctrine of piercing of the corporate veil in the context of tort liabilities of a company. It is generally accepted that the veil piercing doctrine can be applied where a company is used to evade existing legal obligations but not where a company is used to avoid future legal obligations. In the tort context, the prevailing view is that it is permissible to establish a company to carry on activities to enable the controllers of the company to escape personal tort liabilities arising from the activities. However, it is argued in this article that such a situation potentially involves the use (misuse) of a company to evade existing tort obligations and that there is greater scope than traditionally understood for piercing of the corporate veil to impose a company’s tort liabilities on its controllers.
AndersonH (2009) Piercing the veil in corporate groups in Australia: The case for reform. Melbourne University Law Review33(2): 333–367.
2.
AustinRPRamsayIM (2015) Ford, Austin and Ramsay’s Principles of Corporations Law. 15th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis.
3.
BallantineHW (1925) Separate entity of parent and subsidiary corporations. California Law Review14(1): 12–21.
4.
BransonDM (2011) Holding multinational corporations accountable? Achilles’ heels in Alien Tort Claims Act litigation. Santa Clara Journal of International Law9(1): 227–249.
5.
CapuanoA (2009) The realists’ guide to piercing the corporate veil: Lessons from Hong Kong and Singapore. Australian Journal of Corporate Law23(1): 56–93.
6.
CarrollR (1993) Corporate parents and tort liability. In: GilloolyM (ed.), Law Relating to Corporate Groups. Sydney: Federation Press, pp. 91–122.
7.
ChengTK (2011) The corporate veil doctrine revisited: A comparative study of the English and the US corporate veil doctrines. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review34: 329–412.
8.
Companies and Securities Advisory Committee (2000) Corporate Groups: Final Report. Sydney: CASAC.
9.
DayW (2014) Skirting around the issue: The corporate veil after Prest v Petrodel. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly2014(2): 269–296.
10.
DearbornM (2009) Enterprise liability: Reviewing and revitalising liability for corporate groups. California Law Review97: 195–261.
11.
DentGW (1991) Limited liability in environmental law. Wake Forest Law Review26: 151–182.
12.
EasterbrookFHFischelDR (1985) Limited liability and the corporation. University of Chicago Law Review52: 89–117.
13.
FarrarJH (2014) Doctrinal incoherence and complex variables in piercing the corporate veil cases. Australian Journal of Corporate Law29(1): 23–37.
14.
FrenchDMaysonSRyanC (2015) Mayson, French and Ryan on Company Law. 32nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
FrenchP (1992) Parent corporation liability: An evaluation of the corporate veil piercing doctrine and its application to the toxic tort arena. Tulane Environmental Law Journal5: 605–634.
16.
HalpernPTrebilcockMTurnbullS (1980) An economic analysis of limited liability in corporation law. University of Toronto Law Journal30(2): 117–150.
17.
HanniganB (2013) Wedded to Salomon: Evasion, concealment and confusion on piercing the veil of the one-man company. Irish Jurist50: 11–39.
18.
HansmannHKraakmanR (1991) Toward unlimited shareholder liability for corporate torts. Yale Law Journal100(7): 1879–1934.
19.
HarrisJ (2005) Lifting the corporate veil on the basis of an implied agency: A re-evaluation of Smith, Stone and Knight. Company and Securities Law Journal23(1): 7–27.
20.
HarrisJHargovanA (2011) Cutting the Gordian knot of corporate law: Revisiting veil piercing in corporate groups. Australian Journal of Corporate Law26(1): 39–54.
21.
KeelerJ (2001) Thinking through the unthinkable: Collective responsibilities in personal injury law. Common Law World Review30(4): 349–386.
22.
LeePW (2015) The enigma of veil-piercing. International Company and Commercial Law Review26(1): 28–34.
23.
LoSHCQuCZ (2015) Law of Companies in Hong Kong. 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Sweet and Maxwell.
24.
McCullockJTweedaleG (2008) Defending the Indefensible: The Global Asbestos Industry and its Fight for Survival. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
MendelsonNA (2002) A control based approach to shareholder liability for corporate torts. Columbia Law Review102: 1203–1303.
26.
MillonD (2007) Piercing the corporate veil, financial responsibility and the limits of limited liability. Emory Law Journal56: 1305–1382.
27.
MuchlinskiPT (2002) Holding multinationals to account: Recent developments in English litigation and the company law review. Company Lawyer23(6): 168–179.
28.
MuchlinskiP (2010) Limited liability and multinational enterprises: A case for reform?Cambridge Journal of Economics34(5): 915–928.
29.
OttolenghiS (1990) From peeping behind the corporate veil to ignoring it completely. Modern Law Review53(3): 338–353.
30.
ParkerD (2006) Piercing the veil of incorporation: Company law for a modern era. Australian Journal of Corporate Law19(1): 35–64.
31.
RamsayIM (1999) Allocating liability in corporate groups: An Australian perspective. Connecticut Journal of International Law13(2): 329–378.
32.
RamsayIMNoakesDB (2001) Piercing the corporate veil in Australia. Company and Securities Law Journal19: 250–271.
33.
SappideenCVinesP (2011) Fleming’s Law of Torts. 10th ed. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.
34.
StrasserKA (2005) Piercing the veil in corporate groups. Connecticut Law Review37: 637–665.
35.
TanCH (2015) Veil piercing—A fresh start. Journal of Business Law2015(1): 20–36.
36.
ThompsonRB (2005) Piercing the veil: Is the common law the problem?Connecticut Law Review37: 619–635.
37.
WittingC (2006) Breach of the non-delegable duty: Defending limited strict liability in tort. University of New South Wales Law Journal29(3): 33–60
38.
WittingC (2008) Leichardt Municipal Council v Montgomery: Non-delegable duties and roads authorities. Melbourne University Law Review32(1): 332–349.
39.
WittingC (2009) Modified limited liability. Company and Securities Law Journal27(2): 108–124.
40.
WrightRW (2000) The principles of justice. Notre Dame Law Review75: 1859–1892.
