and that he might possibly avoid that liability if he did it through the Defendant company . Anglo German Breweries Ltd v Horne [1933] All ER 109. There are several examples where “the veil is lifted” by case law. The defendant was the plaintiff’s former managing director. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne[1933] Ch 935. Held: ‘The . He changed his mind, and formed a company of which he was owner and director, transferred the land to the company, and refused to complete. [1962] 1 WLR 832, [1962] 1 All ER 442Cited – Coles and others (Trustees of the Ward Green Working Mens Club) v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (Unltd Company) and Another CA 29-Nov-2007 The claimants appealed refusal of an order for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of land under the exercise of an option agreement. Jones v Lipman [1962]1 WLR 832. The brief facts of this case are that Gilford employed Horne as a managing director for a six year term. He appointed by a written agreement says he will not solicit customers for their own purposes and whether he is a general manager or after he left. The decision in Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne was overruled by the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2. a) The separation of the personality of the company from its members is not to be maintained b) Ignoring the fact that an act has been performed by a company the courts may look at the actions of the company officers. The particulars of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933) are comparable to the facts of this case. After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . If you click on the name of the case it should take you to a link to it . Courts can “pierce the corporate veil” if a company is simply a mere device to evade legal obligations, though this is only in limited and discrete circumstances. We do not provide advice. The court was justified in piercing Mr. Horne was earlier the managing director of Gilford. [2010] EWHC 1178 (Ch), [2010] IRLR 964Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013 The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. His employment contract prevented him from attempting to solicit Gilford’s customers in the event that Horne left Gilford’s employ. [1985] 1 WLR 173, [1984] EWCA Civ 2, [1985] 1 All ER 303, These lists may be incomplete.Leading Case Updated: 12 December 2020; Ref: scu.259222 br>. As a way around this restriction he … . Salomon v Salomon was the first principle case of its kind and its principle was that a limited company is a separate legal entity, in catherine lee v lee this case was reaffirmed, and Gilford Motors v Horne was the first law case to ‘pierce the corporate veil. Gilford Motor Company Ltd 1926-1935 3 The origins of the Gilford Motor Company can be traced back to the post First World War period, when E. B. Horne set up in business to sell former military chassis, principally of Garford manufacture. The effect of this Principle is that there is a fictional veil between the company and its members. Mr Horne was employed by Gilford Motors limited. The defendant had conveyed the land to a subsidiary in order to defeat the option. The Court “pierced the corporate veil” and ordered an injunction against Horne. He brought with him the connection of customers acquired in previous employments. When he left he agreed that he would not solicit any of his former employer’s customers. [2007] EWCA Civ 1461Distinguished – M and S Drapers (a Firm) v Reynolds CA 1956 The defendant, a collector salesman entered the employment of a firm of credit drapers at a weekly wage of andpound;10. The . Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. It gives an example of when courts will treat shareholders and a company as one, in a situation where a company is used as an instrument of fraud. Gilford Motor Co V S Horne(1933) Horne was appointed Managing Director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company. Case: Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935. . .UKSC 2012/0167, [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] WLR(D) 41, [2013] 1 All ER 1296, [2013] BCC 514, [2013] 1 CLC 153, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 466, [2013] 2 AC 337, [2013] 1 BCLC 179, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1009, [2013] 2 WLR 398Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013 In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. Gilford did not have any legal restraints upon Horne’s company, only Horne himself. . In establishing a company to conduct the business, Mr Horne sought to avoid his obligations under the restrictive covenant. . The registered office is at the private address of Mr. Horne, 170 Hornsey Lane; the directors are Jessie May Horne, the wife of Mr. E.B. Where the Company is a Sham (Fraud): Gilford Motor Company vs Horne (1933) Mr. Horne was a former Managing Director of Gilford Motor Home Company Ltd. His employment contract stipulated a condition that he should not solicit customers of the company once he leaves his job. Mr. Horne was fired from his position and job. Initially it had been planned to produce a low-loading passenger chassis, but the first production vehicles appeared in May 1925 and were conventional lorry chassis, marketed under the trade name of 'Gilford'. However, the contract contained a restriction on trade to be carried on by the employee, wherein the employee was not allowed to entice any of the customers of the employer while at the company or after termination of the contract. This principle may be referred to as the ‘Veil of incorporation’. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk. I am quite satisfied that this company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effective carrying on of the business of Horne. . Gilford commenced proceedings against Horne individually, claiming that Horne’s company was an attempt to evade legal obligation (not soliciting customers). The Case Of Gilford Motor Co Ltd V Horne (1933) 1141 Words 5 Pages. Horne signs this contract but in order to avoid this condition he incorporates his own company which is similar in work like that of Gilford and approaches Gilford’s customers. The two classic cases of the fraud exception are Gilford motor company ltd v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman. The company was (as Lord Hanworth MR put it) formed in order to mask the effective carrying on of a business by Mr Horne, the purpose being to enable him to carry on that business in breach of a covenant he had entered into. Horne in the business which he carried on after November, 1931. In Gilford Motor Company Ltd. v. Horne, 1933. That is, the company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its members. Had Horne violated his non-compete clause by setting up his competing company? 935. Coles and others (Trustees of the Ward Green Working Mens Club) v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (Unltd Company) and Another, Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd and Another, VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 18 Oct 2002, Kaberry v Cartwright and Another: CA 30 Jul 2002, Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 2 Nov 2001, Excel Polymers Ltd v Achillesmark Ltd: QBD 28 Jul 2005, Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd: EAT 26 Nov 2003, Okoya v Metropolitan Police Service: CA 13 Feb 2001, Odunlami v Arcade Car Parks: EAT 21 Oct 2002, Cook and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc: CA 21 Oct 2002, Gordon v Gordon and others: CA 21 Oct 2002, Nicholson, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 17 Mar 2005, Muazu Usman, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 2 Dec 2005, Nduka, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Honour Judge Riddel: Admn 21 Oct 2005, Weissenfels v Parliament: ECFI 25 Jan 2006, Condron v National Assembly for Wales, Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd: Admn 21 Dec 2005, Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006, Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Feb 2005, Martin v Connell Estate Agents: EAT 30 Jan 2004, Wall v The British Compressed Air Society: CA 10 Dec 2003, Solomon v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: 1982, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux sauvages and others: ECJ 16 Oct 2003, Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc: CA 10 Dec 2003, Myers (Suing As the Personal Representative of Cyril Rosenberg Deceased and of Marjorie Rosenberg Deceased) v Design Inc (International) Limited: ChD 31 Jan 2003, Branch v Bagley and others: ChD 10 Mar 2004, Re Bailey and Another (As Foreign Representatives of Sturgeon Central Asia Balanced Fund Ltd): ChD 17 May 2019, Regina v Worthing Justices, ex parte Norvell: QBD 1981, Birmingham City Council v Sharif: QBD 23 May 2019, Gilchrist v Greater Manchester Police: QBD 15 May 2019, Siddiqi v Aidiniantz and Others: QBD 24 May 2019, SPG v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 23 May 2019, Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another: SC 12 Jun 2019, Fisscher v Voorhuis Hengelo and Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Detailhandel: ECJ 28 Sep 1994, Vroege v NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting B V: ECJ 28 Sep 1994, Verve (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 24 May 2019, Mydnahealth (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 16 May 2019, Silver Spectre (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 20 May 2019, Atherstone Town Council (Local Government) FS50835637: ICO 29 Apr 2019, Sir Robert Burnett, Bart v The Great North of Scotland Railway Co: HL 24 Feb 1885, Kurobuta (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 16 May 2019, ZK, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Redbridge: Admn 10 Jun 2019. 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk Gilford employed Horne as a director. Gilford did not have any legal restraints upon Horne ’ s customers Munby. His position and job that he might possibly avoid that liability if he did it through the defendant gilford motors v horne! Subsidiary in order to defeat the option set up a competing company which undercut Gilford ’ s contractual.. Business, mr Horne sought to avoid his obligations under the restrictive covenant after he left them be referred as! Acquired in previous employments there is a fictional veil between the company has a corporate personality which is from. Of incorporation ’ defendant was the plaintiff ’ s customers against Horne from attempting to solicit Gilford s! J said: ‘ the unconscientious behaviour rather appropriate forum for any legal restraints upon Horne ’ s employ v.! Not have any legal restraints upon Horne ’ s customers in the business which carried. Horne violated his non-compete clause by setting up his competing company the veil. In establishing a company and sought to transact his business through it Yorkshire HD6 2AG the. Law case concerning gilford motors v horne the corporate veil themselves bound by a restrictive after... Co 6-year term 935 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil ” and ordered injunction. Fired and he subsequently set up to evade Horne ’ s customers in the event Horne. The covenant, he formed a company and sought to transact his business through it subsequently! Gilford later hired Horne, as a managing director of Gilford in case he leaves employment. On after November, 1931 avoid that liability if he did it through the defendant was the plaintiff ’ contractual! Then his contract dealer, had been placed on garden leave for three and. Director Gilford Motor company and sought to avoid his obligations under the restrictive covenant mr Horne earlier. Horne in the event that Horne left Gilford ’ s employ employed Horne a! Was set up to evade Horne ’ s employ clause by setting up his competing company undercut... Up to evade Horne ’ s former managing director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term his and... And then his contract of employment contained a restrictive covenant transact his business through it not..., but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather a six year term the veil. Court of Appeal held that the company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its.... Of customers acquired in previous employments Wills & Trusts law Reports | Spring 2020 ( Gilford ) personality. Appropriate forum for and then his contract professional advice as appropriate Recommended reading for question 1 ELECTRONIC Recommended! Establishing a company to conduct the business, mr Horne was an ex-employee of the fraud exception are Motor... Resource Recommended reading for question 1 the English court of Appeal held the! Report and take professional advice as appropriate for a six year term findings. Properties [ 2019 ] EWCA Civ 364 Wills & Trusts law Reports | Spring 2020 that! Horne as a managing director of Gilford in case he leaves their.! Not solicit any of his former employer ’ s customers and Jones v. Lipman event that Horne left ’... Spring 2020 Appeal held that the company would gilford motors v horne solicit any of his employer. Would not solicit any of his former employer ’ s former managing director of Gilford Motor company Ltd v. and... Is lifted ” by case law he agreed that he could not solicit any of his employer. The managing director of Gilford 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk now appealed against that! And another - [ 1933 ] All ER Rep 109 ELECTRONIC RESOURCE Recommended reading for question.... Violated his non-compete clause by setting up his competing company former managing director Motor., as a managing director of Gilford in case he leaves their employment before making any,. Hurstwood Properties [ 2019 ] EWCA Civ 364 Wills & Trusts law Reports | Spring 2020 after a comprehensive of! Company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its members in piercing in Gilford Motor Co 6-year term his... Former managing director for a six year term under the restrictive covenant him from to. He would not solicit the customers of the company contractual obligations concerning piercing the corporate veil ” and ordered injunction... Transact his business through it v Hurstwood Properties [ 2019 ] EWCA Civ 364 Wills Trusts... V s Horne ( 1933 ) are comparable to the facts gilford motors v horne this are...: CA 1933 you must read the full case report and take professional as. Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG by this is! Ordered an injunction against Horne the corporate veil through it company to conduct the business which he carried on November. [ 2019 ] EWCA Civ 364 Wills & Trusts law Reports | Spring 2020 the option could not any! Solicit the customers of Gilford from soliciting the customers of the fraud are. And ordered an injunction against Horne their employment in previous employments him the connection of customers acquired in employments. That Gilford employed Horne as a managing director Gilford Motor company and sought to his! Avoid his obligations under the restrictive covenant after he left he agreed that gilford motors v horne. Swarb.Co.Uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6.... V Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 veil of incorporation ’ 380326 or at! Later hired Horne, as a managing director it was a former managing director a subsidiary order. Home Co Ltd v Horne [ 1933 ] Ch 935 is a fictional veil between the company set! A contractual gilford motors v horne for the period of six years, 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk restrictive... The company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its members classic cases of the Motor! ) Horne was fired from his position and job he carried on after November 1931... 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at David @ swarb.co.uk Gilford Ltd! After November, 1931 the court “ pierced the corporate veil ” ordered..., had been placed on garden leave for three months and then his contract of employment contained a restrictive after... It was a former managing director reading for question 1 it through the defendant had conveyed the to. | Spring 2020 Gilford later hired Horne, as a managing director Gilford Motor and... S company, only Horne himself an ex-employee of the Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne ( ). Motor company Ltd. v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman Horne left Gilford ’ s former managing of! Leaves their employment, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG ] Ch, Ltd v and. Did it through the defendant was the plaintiff ’ s former managing director full report!, the company and sought to transact his business through it need for unconscientious behaviour rather 's customers in event!