Introduction
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. is a landmark decision by the House of Lords that laid the foundation of modern company law. The case established the principle that a company, once incorporated, becomes a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders, even if one person holds the majority of shares. This principle protects shareholders from personal liability for the company’s debts and has had a profound impact on corporate law worldwide.
Bench
- Lord Halsbury LC
- Lord Watson
- Lord Herschell
- Lord Macnaghten
- Lord Morris
- Lord Davey
Court: House of Lords, United Kingdom
Facts
Mr. Aron Salomon was a successful leather merchant who had conducted his business as a sole proprietor. In 1892, he decided to convert his business into a limited company named Salomon & Co. Ltd.. As per the legal requirements of the Companies Act, 1862, at least seven subscribers were required to form a company. Mr. Salomon complied with this by allotting one share each to six other members of his family—his wife, daughter, and four sons—while he retained the majority of shares and became the principal shareholder and managing director.
The newly formed company purchased the business from Mr. Salomon for £39,000. This amount was paid partly in cash, partly in shares, and partly through the issue of debentures worth £10,000, secured by a floating charge on the company’s assets. These debentures made Mr. Salomon a secured creditor of the company.
Soon after incorporation, the company ran into financial trouble and was unable to repay its debts. It went into liquidation, and the company’s unsecured creditors argued that the company was merely a sham or alias for Mr. Salomon, who had fraudulently used the corporate form to limit his liability. They claimed he should be personally liable for the company’s debts since he controlled everything and had effectively transferred a failing business to the company at an inflated price.
The liquidator brought a case against Mr. Salomon to make him personally liable for the company’s debts. The lower courts (the High Court and the Court of Appeal) agreed with the creditors, but the matter was ultimately taken to the House of Lords.
Issues
- Whether a company validly formed by one person holding a majority of shares, with other shareholders acting merely as nominees, could be considered a separate legal entity.
- Whether the company was a mere agent, trustee, or sham for Mr. Salomon.
- Whether Mr. Salomon could be held personally liable for the debts of the company.
Arguments
For the Creditors (Respondents):
They argued that the company was essentially Mr. Salomon himself, and therefore, there was no real separation between the individual and the business. Since the entire operation was managed and controlled by him, it was a mere facade, and the principle of limited liability should not apply. They claimed that the corporate form had been used to evade personal liability, which should be treated as fraudulent.
For Mr. Salomon (Appellant):
His counsel argued that the company was incorporated under the Companies Act and had fulfilled all statutory requirements. It had its own corporate identity, and once incorporated, it existed separately from Mr. Salomon, regardless of who held how many shares. They contended that his secured creditor status via debentures was lawfully acquired, and he had a right to claim his dues before the unsecured creditors.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle Applied)
The House of Lords unanimously held that once a company is duly incorporated, it becomes a separate legal person, irrespective of whether one person owns the majority of its shares or controls its operations. As long as the requirements of the Companies Act are fulfilled, the motives or control of one shareholder do not affect the company’s legal personality.
The Court further held that the company was not an agent or trustee of Mr. Salomon. There was no fraud, and the transaction between Mr. Salomon and the company was legitimate. Mr. Salomon, therefore, was not personally liable for the debts of the company.
Observation
The Lords emphasized that the legal consequences of incorporation cannot be ignored. Corporate personality must be respected even when a company is closely held or controlled by one individual. The judges noted that the law does not inquire into whether the other shareholders are active participants, as long as the incorporation was legally valid.
Lord Macnaghten famously stated:
“The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers… Even if it is practically Mr. Salomon and company, after incorporation, it is not the same thing. It is a separate legal entity.”
Decision
The House of Lords reversed the decisions of the lower courts and held in favor of Mr. Salomon. It ruled that:
- The company was validly incorporated and had a separate legal existence.
- Mr. Salomon could not be held personally liable for the company’s debts.
- His status as a secured creditor via debentures was legally valid, and he was entitled to repayment before the unsecured creditors.
Conclusion
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. is a foundational case in company law that firmly established the principle of corporate personality and limited liability. It clarified that once a company is incorporated, it is a distinct person in the eyes of law, even if it is owned and managed by a single individual. This case underpins modern corporate structures and has had lasting influence on company legislation across jurisdictions.
Important Terms
- Separate Legal Entity: A company has its own legal personality, separate from its shareholders and directors.
- Limited Liability: Shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of the company beyond their share capital.
- Debenture: A long-term security yielding a fixed interest, issued by a company and secured against assets.
- Floating Charge: A security interest over a pool of changing assets (e.g., inventory or receivables).
-
Piercing the Corporate Veil: A legal doctrine used to disregard the company’s separate identity in cases of fraud or sham, which was not applied in this case.
