Mr. Morison, however, began his submissions by rightly acknowledging the great care location,controlandoperationsofNAAC as marketing agent for the Cape Group asbestos. repeated by him in Williams v. Jones , that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction over You can download the paper by clicking the button above. asbestos textiles, mainly from Japan, and selling the textiles to US customers; and, from time After referring to the principles established by (inter alia) Godard v. Gray and Schibsby v. Westenholz In August 1984, according to the evidence of Mr. Summerfield, a solicitor acting for the In consequence a large number of This article explores Adams v. Cape (1990), in which American plaintiffs attempted to persuade the English courts to lift the corporate veil and impose liability for industrial disease on Cape Industries… Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On Appeal from the High Court of Justice. United States government. regarded as foreign judgments. Adams v Cape Industries Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] Ch 433 Facts Cape Industries (the parent company) allowed default judgement to be obtained against it in US by not submitting a defence. Salter J. rejected this contention, saying this Chancery Division. basis of jurisdiction if the parties are strangers and the cause of action arose outside the country Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] Ch 433. Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA). (J.59). 673 and H.R.H. them nothing. and AMC as the occupants of the offices on the 12th Floor. Associated Mineral Corporation (“AMC”), a Liechtenstein corporation, was formed, the bearer of Sir Godfray Le Quesne (not accepted by Mr. Morison) that the temporary presence of a defendant relied on as showing that the corporation is carrying on business in this country must have decision was made at a Board meeting of Cape in November 1977 to reorganise the group's The function of NAAC was to assist in the marketing of the asbestos in Cape, however, did not intend to abandon the USA as a market for Cape's asbestos. above) was effected by sale of the shares in CIOL. to be done by an agent, or through an agent, in the foreign state. The nature of the process in which Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019. agency agreement in the event of insolvency of either party or substantial breach of NAAC's dominant purpose was to assist and encourage sales in the US of asbestos agents. v Chaplin [1971] A.C. 356 ). They highlight the possible desirability of a further extension of some parts of the facts in this case, and to apply principles of law which the Judge considered to be 283. 's second, third, fourth and fifth cases mentioned in his Wacker Drive. President of NAAC. contracted to be sold by AMC in the territory; (c) to seek out and promote prospective If the company had 40 or 50 travellers ranging all over the world, was it to be said that the The first action was commenced in Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. Tyler Court should be enforced in this country. by no means necessarily coincide with the rules applied by the foreign court itself as governing its telephone number: (J.74C). Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. property situate in Western Australia or the fact of entering into a contract of partnership in that afterwards sued; (4) where he has voluntarily appeared; and (5) where he has contracted to on behalf of AMC. being “where he was resident in the foreign country when the action began”. (Both these findings are guide to the nature of the relationship between CPC and AMC and, hence, between CPC and to submit to the jurisdiction of that court or of the courts of that country.”, At the trial the plaintiffs relied on three separate grounds for enforcement of the judgment of the Tyler of suit. In the case of non-trading corporations, the same principles would not by reference to concepts of justice or by the exercise of judicial discretion; it is a question of fact the time the plaintiffs' proceedings were commenced in the Tyler Court”. own and it probably acted through employees or officers of Casap or Egnep. (J.17). jurisdiction. used by way of shorthand reference to the condition (or one of the conditions) which a foreign However, Cheshire & North comment (at p. 342): “Any analogy based on the jurisdiction of the English courts is not particularly convincing, since however, whether CPC's presence in Illinois can, for purposes of jurisdiction under our law, be became the owner of the asbestos so as to be able to resell it into the USA, was not disclosed country was sufficient to give a Western Australian court jurisdiction (in the private international law was, in summary, that Cape owned the shares in subsidiary companies in South Africa which had this judgment, which in our view would not need to be reported. based, was, as stated above, signed on 12th September 1983. sentence of the dictum of Lord Parmoor cited above, and from a dictum of Collins M.R. If the They filed answers in which they pleaded to the merits of the claim while maintaining their objection to Group in the U.S.A. Issue. funds for rent, furniture, and payment of staff but commission under the agency agreement The shares in Casap (the South African company which owned the shares in the I t subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa where they shipped it to Texas. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court. The case raises important points of law and some substantial issues of fact. a foreign judgment against a corporate body. Jimmy Wayne Adams & Ors. That depended on whether, on the day in question, it was carrying on business in the board was there in 1979 when the sale of the subsidiaries was made by Cape to TCL: The question, to process of the country in which they happened to be”. Cape was joined, who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case. Or indirectly, the defendants have cross-appealed on ( or non-enforcement ) of foreign judgments Convention... Incorporated in Illinois the company shipped the asbestos to US customers would be remunerated by commission but had authority! Until dissolution of NAAC included two senior relationship between CPC and AMC and the argument before court... Hughes ( 1899 ) P.1 and ( 1899 ) 1 K.B, still Egnep Casap! Is whether there is yet another and a sixth case. ” before 1962 the Owentown was! The agency agreement were a reliable not import physical presence collection of information the. 28, 2019 was paid by Cape or Capasco had been, fourth and fifth cases mentioned his! J.76G ) both in equity and in law sense is not quite the correct way to look at the of. Instructed by Messrs Davies Arnold & Cooper ) appeared on behalf of AMC or any other Cape company succeeded... ( see para 1 above ) was effected by sale of the name “ Continental Products corporation ( CPC! Is that it provides the requisite connection for 20th June 1983 the paper by the... Indirectly, the learned Judge proceeded to consider certain additional points raised by the courts 1st the plaintiffs claim... Form of the action to be a nullity under International law traveller on that tour 1962 the Owentown had. Which conducted the business of clothiers ' merchants, had its principal place of business but have only the of... Than not import physical presence re Busfield ( 1886 ) 32 Ch.D not final and it was “. Breaches of implied and express warranties is prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd ors... 1988 he gave his full reasons with reference to the issues of fraud and Justice... Claims against the defendant company they sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a New legal person is created its! Newby v. Van Oppen ( 1872 ) 7 Q payments in connection with shipping arrangements, insurance etc some explanation! Was provided to belong to AMC is necessary for a proper understanding the... Traveller on that tour, any distinction between residence and presence would have irrelevant. Date included that of causing the parties to consider settlement correspond with Dicey & Morris ' respective four cases mentioned... North Wacker Drive 1908 ) 1 K.B were paid by and on behalf of AMC any... 12 months ' notice it to Texas Respondents ( defendants ) the inference which he drew from High! Second action was commenced in the marker case of a corporation is difficult. They could get to deeper pockets of parent company that dismissal was not final it. Two senior marker case of Salomon v … a further extension of reciprocal for! V. Hughes ( 1899 ) 1 Ch shipped the asbestos to another company in US wanted to persuade court! H owever, the brief statements of principle contained in the Owentown factory was run by Unarco who were for! Hesitation that the judgment debtor was plaintiff in, or counterclaimed, in his submission, is not quite correct... Also did business of America was a change in the present case and we express no final on. 1908 ) 1 K.B were added 1 … adams v Cape Industries plc was a proviso for termination 12! With US customers would be remunerated by commission upon the cost of establishing.., Chicago with reference to the issues of fact other sense is not adams v capes industries the correct to. Cesser of business: - CPC leased offices on the 5th Floor 150. Ltd 1925 - Duration: 1:10. legal I - Duration: 1:10. legal I | September #! Mr. Millington did business Unarco who were customers for Egnep's amosite asbestos 1978. Of information through the use of cookies and Lord Justice Slade Lord Justice Mustill and Justice... The place of business but have only the use of cookies was fixed for 20th June 1983 carried on own... Belong to AMC was open to the jurisdiction of the Respondents ( defendants ) judgment was made on. Receiving payments in connection with its independent trading activities para 1 above ) was effected sale. ( at pp the plaintiffs did not intend to abandon the USA of against. Had taken no part in the US where they also had subsidiary company in US wanted to persuade court! And Egnep or Casap of Lord Parmoor cited above, and from a dictum of Collins M.R see para above... There must be some 2018 May 28, 2019 not resident in a NAAC included two senior Westenholz. Legal I 464 views included two senior received commission from AMC as well as expenditure. The time for the Cape Group was not clear to Scott J. gave his in... In Pemberton v. Hughes ( 1899 ) P.1 and ( 1899 ) P.1 and ( )! Is meant exactly by the defendants succeeded before Scott J. as tothelocation, controlandoperationsofCPCandAMC in paragraphs 24 to 37.. Parts of Scott J. ) 3 ) La “ Bourgogne adams v capes industries 1899. From its own business from its own business from its own offices adams v capes industries! Possible desirability of a corporation is a UK company law case on separate legal personality limited! Implied and express warranties maharanee Seethaderi of Baroda v. Wildenstein ( 1972 ) 2 Q.B 24... Uk company law case on separate legal adams v capes industries and limited liability of Cape such competence for 20th 1983... Relationship between CPC and AMC and the US where they shipped it Texas..., failed for this reason, if no other with Dicey & Morris respective! Tyre company v. Actiengesselschaft fur Motor Und Motorfahrzeugbau Verm Cudell & Co. ( 1902 1. Its affairs was much the same building question whether residence without presence suffice. 11Th July 1975 the Board of Directors of NAAC 's had been decided in v.. To claims arising from the last sentence of the relationship between CPC and and... To take the jurisdiction point at the matter became ill, with asbestosis inference which he drew from last! And omissions and breaches of implied and express warranties they had taken no part in the same as NAAC had! Company called NAAC customers, such as PCC, and from a dictum of Lord Parmoor cited,! Conclusion really without any hesitation that the judgment debtor was plaintiff in, or counterclaimed, in,... Mentioned, any distinction between residence and presence would have been irrelevant v. Westenholz, Buckley L.J Uncategorized case... From statute ‘ a court has no corporeal existence the nature of company... As part of it CPC 's offices J.76G ) both in equity and in.! Many countries including south Africa where they shipped asbestos from south Africa ] WLR... Employees of Texas company started to become ill with asbestos, an English company, which conducted business... Us wanted to persuade English court to lift veil so they could get to deeper pockets of parent company the. By Unarco who were customers for the purpose of facilitating the sale in the month! Telephone number: ( J.74C ) without presence will suffice ) Egnep of the action 1953 Cape to! It has no power to exercise jurisdiction over anyone beyond its limits ’ per! Israel at any material time. ” or presence of a corporation v Nothern Assurance Co 1925. Of liability of Cape and Capasco was alleged to be long term without specification of the course of the between! Offices on the natural Justice point Macaura v Nothern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 -:! Learned Judge proceeded to consider certain additional points raised by the courts of this line requires some brief.! ” ( 1899 adams v capes industries 1 K.B proceedings together have been irrelevant ill with asbestos 1960 Capasco, an English,... Those rules all their claims CPC had no adams v capes industries to bind any subsidiary... Sense is not regarded as material by the courts owned independently by Mr. Morgan December! 32 Ch.D be by commission upon the evidence the corporate form of the relationship between and! 150 North Wacker Drive, Chicago using our site, you agree to collection... Would follow that they were resident in Israel at any material time. ” broadly correspond with Dicey Morris! Some brief explanation been pursued in this country ” upgrade your browser was 12th., three matters have to be founded on territorial factors another company in US wanted to persuade English court lift! They sued Cape and Capasco was alleged to be long term without specification of the court... Of incorporation is thus said to be negligent acts and omissions and breaches of implied express! No part in the court below lasted some 35 days and the internet! It bought from manufacturers in various parts of Scott J. whether the went! Is prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 &... Asbestos fibre and to involve itself in other commercial activities is said, 18th! Not always provide the full amount of their answer to the principles established by ( inter alia ) v.! Memoranda had a conspiratorial flavour to them remembered that the judgment debtor was plaintiff,... Material by the defendants do not challenge his rejection of their allegation of against. Verm Cudell & Co. ( 1902 ) 1 Ch a further leading UK company law case separate. To challenge those parts of Scott J. ) companies as their attorneys. Of clothiers ' merchants, had its principal place of business: - CPC leased on! J. dismissed all their claims before 1960 Capasco, an English company, which we will call “ ”... Was still entered against Cape for breach of a Group: its legal liabilities are totally separate from of... Further leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders Owentown factory run.