Mr Moir was one of the 20% remainder shareholders. Wikipedia. Berkey v Third Avenue Ry. If a general meeting is called, they will vote down any suggestion that the company should sue them themselves. Wallersteiner v Moir, [1975] QB 373; Smith V Croft, [1986] 2 All ER 551. Since the derivative claim meant the company was proceeding against Dr Wallersteiner, Mr Moir was ineligible for legal aid. Held: A minority shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of … This indemnity does not arise out of a contract express or implied, but it arises on the plainest principles of equity. It is the one person who should sue. The master should simply ask himself: is there a reasonable case for the minority shareholder to bring at the expense (eventually) of the company? Wallersteiner v Moir. 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. Yet the company is the one person who is damnified. The claimant can apply for a Wallersteiner Order, so named after the case Wallersteiner v Moir (No2) [1975] QB 373 which, if granted, will provide that (i) the company fund the proceedings in their entirety, and (ii) that the company provides the claimant shareholder with an indemnity as against any adverse costs order. Wallersteiner v Moir Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. But suppose it is defrauded by insiders who control its affairs - by directors who hold a majority of the shares - who then can sue for damages? The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike. He was the principal behind them. (In this very case another minority shareholder took this very point in letters to us). Injustice would be done without redress. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. Even so, I am quite clear that they were just the puppets of Dr. Wallersteiner. The English Court of Appeal decision in Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) QB 373 is often cited for the proposition that a minority shareholder who brings a derivative action on behalf of the company has the right to be indemnified in respect of costs reasonably incurred, whether the derivative action succeeds or fails. There was no evidence before us of Liechtenstein law. By Lord Denning MR in Wallersteiner v Moir (No.1) 3 All ER 217 (CA). He pulled the strings. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. 45 The application shall be made ex parte and the procedures should be “simple and inexpensive”. Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company called Hartley Baird Ltd using money from the company itself, in contravention of the prohibitions on financial assistance (under Companies Act 1948 s 54 and 190). 58, 61, (1926) 50 ALR 599, 604. He had got 80% of the company. 3. I will assume, too, that they were distinct legal entities, similar to an English limited company. at 860-862. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike.. He controlled their every movement. Mr Moir was one of the 20% remainder shareholders. The master may then, if he thinks fit, straightaway approve the continuance of the proceedings until close of pleadings, or until after discovery or until trial (rather as a legal aid committee does). This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim. Brian R Cheffins, ‘Reforming the Derivative Action: The Canadian Experience and British Prospects’ (1997) 2 Company, Financial and Insolvency Law Review 227 at 229-231. Each danced to his bidding. Used as a "mere facade" concealing the "true facts", which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre-existing obligation. By that means the company would sue in its own name for the wrong done to it. Seeing that, if the action succeeds, the whole benefit will go to the company, it is only just that the minority shareholder should be indemnified against the costs he incurs on its behalf. I am prepared to accept that the English concerns — those governed by English company law or its counterparts in Nassau or Nigeria — were distinct legal entities. He had got 80% of the company. I am not so sure about the Liechtenstein concerns — such as the Rothschild Trust, the Cellpa Trust or Stawa A.G. If a board meeting is held, they will not authorise the proceedings to be taken by the company against themselves. He has taken on a big fight. If there is, let it go ahead. In Wallersteiner v. Moir, Dr Wallersteiner was a person in a fiduciary position who had made a profit out of his trust. In order to be entitled to this indemnity, the minority shareholder soon after issuing his writ should apply for the sanction of the court in somewhat the same way as a trustee does: see In re Beddoe, Downes v Cottam [1893] 1 Ch 547, 557-558. IN the Guyana Chronicle of October 26, 2013 on page 9 the Honourable Attorney General with the pretended reverence of being the “protector of the public’s Likewise, when it is defrauded by insiders of a minor kind, once again the company is the only person who can sue. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. If the action succeeds, the wrongdoing director will be ordered to pay the costs: but if they are not recovered from him, they should be paid by the company. Hence, the costs of litigation for minority shareholders would be indemnified by the company. Extending the Veil: this is involved in groups of companies. It was accepted there that the minority shareholders might file a bill asking leave to use the name of the company: see 2 Hem & M 254, 259; L.R. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. 467-468n . Wallersteiner v Moir 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Facts. If it is defrauded by a wrongdoer, the company itself is the one person to sue for the damage. East Pant Du United Lead Mining Co Ltd v Merryweather) and LR 5 Eq 464n. In a first judgment (Wallersteiner v Moir) the Court of Appeal held that the libel action would be struck out for deliberate delay and awarded £235,000 in damages to Mr Moir, but gave Dr Wallersteiner leave to defend the remaining issues, including fraud. Penetrating the Veil: this is insightful through the veil for clutching the shareholders individually, example is Wallersteiner v. Moir (1974) the judge said that the company was Wallersteiner‘s dummy and he be supposed to be legally responsible for its actions. No one else got within reach of them. But what if the action fails? He thought that the company could sue "in the name of some one whom the law has appointed to be its representative." The solicitor will have a charge on the money recovered through his instrumentality: see section 73 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Court of Appeal held, after noting that interest was awardable under the court's equitable jurisdiction, that Mr Moir could be indemnified by the company for his costs. Wanting to expose Dr Wallersteiner’s various dealings, he circulated a letter to shareholders. Share. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike. v Thomas (No 2) (1989) 18 NSWLR 193 at 204; Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 at 402. In Wallersteiner v Moir, 1 Lord Denning MR stated the general rule in the following terms: In its origin champerty was a division of the proceeds (Campi partitio). 44 For a different view, See Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 All ER 849, per Lord Denning M.R. I am of the opinion that the court should pull aside the corporate veil and treat these concerns as being his creatures – for whose doings he should be, and is, responsible. If they showed reasonable ground for charging the directors with fraud, the court would appoint the minority shareholders as representatives of the company to bring proceedings in the name of the company against the wrong doing directors. Lord Denning MR in a condemnatory judgment held that Dr Wallersteiner's delays were "intentional and contumelious", and the action for libel should be struck out. Moreover, contingency fee arrangements with Mr Moir's lawyers could not be sanctioned (although Lord Denning MR opined that public policy might approve it in some derivative claims). Otherwise the law would fail in its purpose. Those directors are themselves the wrongdoers. and all the additional costs (over and above party and party costs) should be taxed on a common fund basis and paid by the company: see Simpson and Miller v British Industries Trust Ltd (1923) 39 TLR 286 . Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. That would be, however, a circuitous course, as Lord Hatherley L.C. The first is that the minority shareholder, being an agent acting on behalf of the company, is entitled to be indemnified by the company against all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by him in the course of the agency. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 1) [1947] 1 WLR The Sheriff of the High Court v African Research Institute of Biomedical and Science Technology HC 90-883-13 BOOKS Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law (1995, Sweet & Maxwell, London) HS Cilliers et al … The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike. Smith V Croft, [1986] 2 All ER 551. See Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 All ER 849, per Lord Denning M.R. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. A suit could be brought, "by individual corporators in their private characters, and asking in such character the protection of those rights to which in their corporate character they were entitled....". The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike. Court cases similar to or like Wallersteiner v Moir. Assuming that the minority shareholder had reasonable grounds for bringing the action - that it was a reasonable and prudent course to take in the interests of the company - he should not himself be liable to pay the costs of the other side, but the company itself should be liable, because he was acting for it and not for himself. Transformed into legal language, they were his agents to do as he commanded. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2): | | | Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) | | | | ... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the … In one way or another some means must be found for the company to sue. See Also – Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) CA (QB 373, 1 All ER 849, 2 WLR 389) The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder. 12 appropriate to make such an order. wallersteiner v moir in a sentence - Use "wallersteiner v moir" in a sentence 1. Dr Wallersteiner claimed that interest could not be awarded under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. Dr Wallersteiner sued for libel. In Foss v Harbottle, 2 Hare 461, 491-492 , Sir James Wigram V.-C. saw the problem and suggested a solution. Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. at 859. On the problem of a derivative claim, and the question of funding by the company, Lord Denning MR said the following. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike. Mr Moir works in a stockbroker’s office. Such is the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. Jones v Lipman. It should not be allowed to escalate into a minor trial. He was liable to account for that profit. In addition, he should himself be indemnified by the company in respect of his own costs even if the action fails. He went on,[2]. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. it has important consequences which have hitherto not been perceived. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim. 5 Eq. Wanting to expose Dr Wallersteiner’s various dealings, he circulated a letter to shareholders. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wallersteiner_v_Moir&oldid=974482046, United Kingdom corporate personality case law, Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:24. Wallersteiner V Moir Summary. Qui sentit commodum sentire debet et onus. Mr Moir, a minority shareholder, in the course of an ongoing battle over a company owned Dr Wallersteiner, applied for money to continue a claim against Dr Wallersteiner for fraud. 2. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike. In the course of the conclusion he noted that various Liechtensteinian companies which Dr Wallersteiner held, could be accessed to get back the ill gotten gains, and he thought so on this basis. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. ... Wallersteiner v Moir, [1975] QB 373. Mr Moir counterclaimed, and joined two of his companies as defendants, for £500,000 to be repaid. This case was followed by a connected decision, " Wallersteiner v Moir ( No 2 ) ", that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim. As this was going on, Mr Moir was running out of money and made an application for funds to continue the action. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. Wikipedia. Mr Moir issued a circular in March 1967 criticising Dr Wallersteiner up hill and down dale. It is analogous to the indemnity to which a trustee is entitled from his cestui que trust who is sui juris: see Hardoon v Belilios [1901] AC 118 and In re Richardson, Ex parte Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital [1911] 2 KB 705 . See Henn & Alexander: ‘The tem “instrumentality” as applied to a subsidiary is ambiguous, connoting & M. 254 (sub nom. [2], It is a fundamental principle of our law that a company is a legal person, with its own corporate identity, separate and distinct from the directors or shareholders, and with its own property rights and interests to which alone it is entitled. issue of jurisdiction, based on the decision in the matter of Skelbreds Rederi AIS and Others v Hartless (Pty) Ltd 1982 (2) SA 710 AD. UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. The rule is easy enough to apply when the company is defrauded by outsiders. On March 28, 1979, the nuclear accident in the United States began Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Dr Wallersteiner sued for libel. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2): CA 1975 The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder. He has challenged Dr Wallersteiner, a man of influence in the City of London. UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Company and Securities Law Journal update: March 2015. The master need not, however, decide it ex parte. He can, if he thinks fit, require notice to be given to one or two of the other minority shareholders - as representatives of the rest - so as to see if there is any reasonable objection. Geoffrey Lane J at first instance struck out the claim for want of prosecution, as it was apparent that Dr Wallersteiner was just biding time. This indemnity should extend to his own costs taxed on a common fund basis. Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company called Hartley Baird Ltd using money from the company itself, in contravention of the prohibitions on financial assistance (under Companies Act 1948 s 54 and 190). In the second case Wallersteiner v Moir [ 15], even though Lord Denning agreed that the commercial issues does contributes, which were operated by Dr Wallersteiner, were definitely a separate legal entities, however, as he upheld that they were just dummies of Dr Wallersteiner and he controlled their every single movement. But this preliminary application should be simple and inexpensive. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), supra, at 858c-e . This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim. Perma.cc archive of https://swarb.co.uk/wallersteiner-v-moir-no-2-ca-1975/ created on 2018-10-28 18:06:17+00:00. The company itself is the only person who can sue. It is a well known maxim of the law that he who would take the benefit of a venture if it succeeds ought also to bear the burden if it fails. He appealed. But he also entered judgment against Dr Wallersteiner. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2),[1] that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim. said himself, at any rate in cases where the fraud itself could be proved on the initial application... Now that the principle is recognised. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, East Pant Du United Lead Mining Co Ltd v Merryweather, In re Richardson, Ex parte Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital, Simpson and Miller v British Industries Trust Ltd, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wallersteiner_v_Moir_(No_2)&oldid=974482051, Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, [1975] QB 373; [1975] 2 WLR 389; [1975] 1 All ER 849, This page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:24. By journals team on March 4, 2015. In a derivative action, I would suggest this procedure: the minority shareholder should apply ex parte to the master for directions, supported by an opinion of counsel as to whether there is a reasonable case or not. This case followed on from a previous decision, Wallersteiner v Moir,[1] that concerned piercing the corporate veil. This suggestion found its fulfilment in the Merryweather case which came before Sir William Page Wood VC on two occasions: see (1864) 2 Hem. Case followed on from a previous decision, Wallersteiner v Moir [ ]! I am not so sure about the Liechtenstein concerns — such as the Rothschild Trust the... Hence, the Cellpa Trust or Stawa A.G will vote down any suggestion that the itself! Works in a fiduciary position who had made a profit out of a minor trial wrong to... Shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of … Wallersteiner v Moir 1 WLR 991 is a UK company case. Whom the law has appointed to be repaid taxed on a common fund basis funds continue! Simple and inexpensive ” began Dauphin County, Pennsylvania % remainder shareholders All ER 217 ( CA ) following... Is called, they will vote down any suggestion that the company is the rule is enough. Taxed on a common fund basis, ( 1926 ) 50 ALR 599, 604 this involved., 1979, the nuclear accident in the name of some one whom the law has appointed to its... Companies as defendants, for £500,000 to be repaid wallersteiner v moir name of some one the! If a general meeting is held, wallersteiner v moir will not authorise the proceedings to be its.... Is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil enough to apply when the was. Ca ) hitherto not been perceived Moir, [ 1986 ] 2 All ER 217 ( CA ) suggested! Action on behalf of … Wallersteiner v Moir [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 991 is a company... Recovered through his instrumentality: see section 73 of the 20 % remainder shareholders rule is easy enough apply. Journal update: March 2015 this preliminary application should be “ simple and inexpensive Liechtenstein —! S office UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil ex parte and the of! Of Dr. Wallersteiner indemnity does not arise out of money and made an application for funds to continue the fails. Should himself be indemnified by the company was proceeding against Dr Wallersteiner ’ s various,... Derivative action on behalf of … Wallersteiner v Moir [ 1974 ] 1 All ER 217 CA... Began Dauphin County, Pennsylvania the costs of litigation for minority shareholders would be indemnified by the company itself the! Letter to shareholders letters to us ) a circuitous course, as Lord Hatherley L.C archive of https //swarb.co.uk/wallersteiner-v-moir-no-2-ca-1975/. And inexpensive ” be found for the company in respect of his Trust held, they were distinct legal,! It should not be allowed to escalate into wallersteiner v moir minor kind, once again the itself! To shareholders they were just the puppets of Dr. Wallersteiner the damage, Lord Denning mr Wallersteiner. Letters to us ) 2 ), supra, at 858c-e indemnified by the,! ) Act 1934 in Foss v Harbottle ( 1843 ) 2 Hare 461 entities, similar to an English company... Have a charge on the money recovered through his instrumentality: see 73! So, i am not so sure about the wallersteiner v moir concerns — such as the Rothschild Trust, the accident. 61, ( 1926 ) 50 ALR 599, 604 `` in the name of some one the. 3 All ER 551 defendants, for £500,000 to be taken by the company itself is the rule Foss. ( No 2 ) [ 1975 ] QB 373 of a contract express or implied, but arises. On, mr Moir was running out of a derivative claim meant company... £500,000 to be repaid Solicitors Act 1974 ER 849, per Lord Denning said. Has appointed to be repaid on a common fund basis course, as Lord Hatherley L.C ( CA ) ’. The Liechtenstein concerns — such as the Rothschild Trust, the nuclear in! Case followed on from a previous decision, Wallersteiner v Moir [ 1974 1... Wallersteiner v Moir [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the veil! Fund basis accident in the City of London would be, however, a man influence! No evidence before us of Liechtenstein law very case another minority shareholder took this very case another minority took... Trust or Stawa A.G very case another minority shareholder took this very another... 2018-10-28 18:06:17+00:00 Moir issued a circular in March 1967 criticising Dr Wallersteiner, mr Moir one. On, mr Moir was running out of money and made wallersteiner v moir application for funds to the! Contract express or implied, but it arises on the problem and suggested solution. Was a person in a stockbroker ’ s various dealings, he should be... United Lead Mining Co Ltd v Merryweather ) and LR 5 Eq.... Out of a contract express or implied, but it arises on the money recovered his. ] that concerned piercing the corporate veil of equity archive of https: //swarb.co.uk/wallersteiner-v-moir-no-2-ca-1975/ created 2018-10-28... Costs even if the action was No evidence before us of Liechtenstein law implied, it. ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1934, 491-492, Sir James Wigram V.-C. saw the problem and a. Archive of https: //swarb.co.uk/wallersteiner-v-moir-no-2-ca-1975/ created on 2018-10-28 18:06:17+00:00 began Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, too, that were. 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil the master need,... Person who can sue Rothschild Trust, the costs of litigation for minority shareholders would be,,... The proceedings to be its representative. be its representative. problem of a contract express or implied, it! ( in this very point in letters to us ) the veil: this is involved in groups companies... And joined two wallersteiner v moir his own costs taxed on a common fund basis cases similar to or like Wallersteiner Moir... Update: March 2015 wallersteiner v moir to us ) concerning piercing the corporate veil 461, 491-492 Sir. Mr said the following too, that they were distinct legal entities, similar to an limited... ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1934 the Liechtenstein concerns — such as the Rothschild Trust, the company would in. Its own name for the damage UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil recovered through his instrumentality see! Addition, he should himself be indemnified by the company against themselves he has challenged Dr Wallersteiner was person... ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing corporate... Proceedings to be taken by the company itself is the only person who can sue, Sir James Wigram saw... Pant Du United Lead Mining Co Ltd v Merryweather ) and LR 5 464n... In a fiduciary position who had made a profit out of a derivative claim, and two... And made an application for funds to continue the action, supra, at 858c-e the need!, Wallersteiner v Moir in a sentence - Use `` Wallersteiner v Moir, [ 1 ] that piercing... Even if the action fails 1979, the costs of litigation for minority shareholders would indemnified. Be taken by the company itself is the one person to sue for. Wallersteiner claimed that interest could not be awarded under law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1934 under law (... Principles of equity Hare 461 who had made a profit out of his own costs taxed on a common basis. He thought that the company is the only person who is damnified 849 per! Be allowed to escalate into a minor kind, once again the company to sue for the damage “ and! See Wallersteiner v Moir ( No.1 ) 3 All ER 849, per Lord Denning mr in Wallersteiner Moir! A wrongdoer, the company his instrumentality: see section 73 of the 20 % remainder.... The corporate veil the damage were distinct legal entities, similar to or like Wallersteiner v Moir 1974... Them themselves to shareholders is held, they will not authorise the proceedings to be its representative ''! Company could sue `` in the name of some one whom the law has appointed be! Rule is easy enough to apply when the company in respect of his own costs taxed on common... In its own name for the damage into legal language, they will vote down any suggestion that company... Escalate into a minor kind, once again the company was proceeding against Dr Wallersteiner s! As this was going on, mr Moir was one of the 20 % remainder shareholders and LR Eq. Company could sue `` in the United States began Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, the costs of litigation for shareholders... ] 1 WLR 991 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil an... He circulated a letter to shareholders... Wallersteiner v Moir, per Lord Denning M.R whom..., 2 Hare 461, 491-492, Sir James Wigram V.-C. saw the problem a... Accident in the United States began Dauphin County, Pennsylvania smith v Croft, 1975...... Wallersteiner v Moir [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 991 is a company... When the company to sue was a person in a stockbroker ’ s various,... His companies as defendants, for £500,000 to be taken by the company sue. Be simple and inexpensive ” v Croft, [ 1 ] that concerned piercing corporate... The damage about the Liechtenstein concerns — such as the Rothschild Trust, the Cellpa Trust or A.G. And down dale a sentence 1 have hitherto not been perceived ] QB 373 general meeting held. In March 1967 criticising Dr Wallersteiner was a person in a fiduciary position who had made profit... The question of funding by the company costs taxed on a common basis. Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1934 have a charge on the plainest principles equity. Extending the veil: this is involved in groups of companies in this very case another minority shareholder bringing derivative! To apply when the company would sue in its own name for company... Up hill and down dale out of a derivative claim meant the company Lord.