Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 MAY 2014

Corporate Veil Will Not Be Pierced

Withers LLP
Withers LLP
Contributor
Withers LLP

Withers LLP

Withers is an international law firm focused on the personal, business and philanthropic interests...

View firm profile
Explore more from Withers LLP

A recent Court of Appeal judgment held that a parent company should not be held responsible for Heath & Safety failing in its subsidiaries.

United KingdomEmployment and HR

A recent Court of Appeal judgment held that a parent company should not be held responsible for Heath & Safety failing in its subsidiaries.

Background

David Thompson v Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635 considers Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, a Court of Appeal case which caused immense concern to companies. In Chandler, it was held that a parent company owed a direct duty of care to an employee of one of its subsidiaries contrary to the basic principle that parent companies have a separate legal personality and it should not be possible to 'pierce the corporate veil'. In Thompson the Court of Appeal took a different view based on the facts.

Mr Thompson had been employed by two companies between 1969 and 1970. His work involved the handling of raw asbestos. In 1975, the two companies were acquired by a subsidiary of Renwick Group plc and a new director took over the running of the depot where Mr Thompson worked. As a result of his exposure to

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from