1. When a company is used as sham or façade.
The company was incorporated and used as a “mask” to conceal the real purpose of the company controller. Incorporation is always been used as a device to circumvent the law of the hide the true side of affairs from the court (Woon, 1988).
In the case of Re FG (Films) Ltd, a film called “Monsoon” was made by FG Films. This company had registered office but does not have premises and employees. All the facilities and the finance were provided by an American company called Film Group Incorporated (FGI).FG sought to have the film registered as a British film. The Board of trade declined to register the film as a British film since the FGI was the real maker of the film.
Court held: FG (Films) Ltd was a sham or façade of the FGI. It was not the maker of the film, the purpose of FG (Films) Ltd was to enjoy the benefits given by British …show more content…
The Saudi Al Jubail was arrested by the plaintiffs into a sister-ship action. The plaintiffs had to show the charterer of the ship The Fidelity was the advantageous owner of The Saudi Al Jubail to succeed their action to The Saudi Al Jubail. However, The Saudi Al Jubail was actually owned by Omega Shipping Co Ltd (OSC Ltd). The plaintiffs argued that the CCC Ltd and OSC Ltd were controlled by an Orri. That means the CCC Ltd does not actually exist. Lai Kai Chew J. inferred that OSC was formed by Orri, incorporated in Malta, and The Saudi Al Jubail had been purchased by it. However, the fund had come from Orri. Lai J. formed the impression that Orri had a group of companies that which he used as a front for his activities (Woon, 1988). He did not keep the companies from his own personal affairs or separate from one another. As a conclusion, Orri was the beneficial owner of The Saudi Al Jubail, and the plaintiffs were entitled to the sister-ship
The company was incorporated and used as a “mask” to conceal the real purpose of the company controller. Incorporation is always been used as a device to circumvent the law of the hide the true side of affairs from the court (Woon, 1988).
In the case of Re FG (Films) Ltd, a film called “Monsoon” was made by FG Films. This company had registered office but does not have premises and employees. All the facilities and the finance were provided by an American company called Film Group Incorporated (FGI).FG sought to have the film registered as a British film. The Board of trade declined to register the film as a British film since the FGI was the real maker of the film.
Court held: FG (Films) Ltd was a sham or façade of the FGI. It was not the maker of the film, the purpose of FG (Films) Ltd was to enjoy the benefits given by British …show more content…
The Saudi Al Jubail was arrested by the plaintiffs into a sister-ship action. The plaintiffs had to show the charterer of the ship The Fidelity was the advantageous owner of The Saudi Al Jubail to succeed their action to The Saudi Al Jubail. However, The Saudi Al Jubail was actually owned by Omega Shipping Co Ltd (OSC Ltd). The plaintiffs argued that the CCC Ltd and OSC Ltd were controlled by an Orri. That means the CCC Ltd does not actually exist. Lai Kai Chew J. inferred that OSC was formed by Orri, incorporated in Malta, and The Saudi Al Jubail had been purchased by it. However, the fund had come from Orri. Lai J. formed the impression that Orri had a group of companies that which he used as a front for his activities (Woon, 1988). He did not keep the companies from his own personal affairs or separate from one another. As a conclusion, Orri was the beneficial owner of The Saudi Al Jubail, and the plaintiffs were entitled to the sister-ship