Abstract
UK company law does not have a specialised body of rules dedicated to groups of companies. Liability within a group and toward third parties may arise based on other legal doctrines, such as piercing the corporate veil, liability of the parent company as de facto or shadow director of the subsidiary for various fiduciary, accounting and reporting duties, as well as duties to creditors in the vicinity of insolvency. Liability may also arise when a special relation is established between the companies in a group, such as agency, or between the parent company and a third party affected by the subsidiary’s activity, such as a duty of care in negligence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See e.g. Re Barned’s Banking Company (1867-68) LR 3 Ch App 105 at 112-114, per Lord Cairns LJ (noting that neither the common law nor the statutes prohibited one trading corporation from taking or accepting shares in another trading corporation); Re Asiatic Banking Corporation (1868-69) LR 4 Ch App 252 at 257, per Sir CJ Selwyn LJ (stating that there is nothing to prevent a corporation from being a shareholder in another trading corporation).
- 2.
In this report the terms shareholder and member of the company are used interchangeably.
- 3.
Ferran and Ho (2014), p. 35.
- 4.
The Cork Committee (1982), [1923].
- 5.
The Cork Committee (1982), [1926].
- 6.
The Cork Committee (1982), [1934].
- 7.
The Cork Committee (1982), [1952].
- 8.
- 9.
The Company Law Review Steering Group (2000), [10.58]- [10.59].
- 10.
The Walker Review (2009).
- 11.
The Walker Review (2009), p. 155, Principle 2.
- 12.
Ferran and Ho (2014), p. 22.
- 13.
CA 2006, s 474 (1). The definitions of parent and subsidiary undertakings derive from the Seventh Company Law Directive 83/349/EEC and the subsequent directives relevant to corporate accounts and reports.
- 14.
CA 2006, s 1161 (a)-(b). For the exceptions from the need to consolidate subsidiary undertakings see CA 2006, s 405 CA 2006.
- 15.
CA 2006, s 1162(2)(a) and (d).
- 16.
CA 2006, Schedule 7 s 2.
- 17.
CA 2006, s 1162(2)(b).
- 18.
CA 2006, Schedule 7 s 3.
- 19.
CA 2006, s 1162(2)(c).
- 20.
CA 2006 Schedule 7 s 4(1).
- 21.
CA 2006 Schedule 7 s 4(2).
- 22.
CA 2006 s 1162 (4) (a).
- 23.
Ferran and Ho (2014), p. 25.
- 24.
Ferran and Ho (2014), pp. 24–25.
- 25.
CA 2006 s 1162 (4)(b).
- 26.
The duty to provide group accounts is discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.2 below.
- 27.
The main statutory contexts in which this concept is relevant are discussed in the following sections.
- 28.
CA 2006 s 1159 (1).
- 29.
CA 2006 s 1159(1) (a)-(c).
- 30.
CA 2006 s 136.
- 31.
CA 2006 s 1159 and Schedule 6.
- 32.
Ferran and Ho (2014), p. 26.
- 33.
CA 2006 s 256.
- 34.
CA 2006 ss 197-214.
- 35.
CA 2006 ss 232-237.
- 36.
CA 2006 s 820 (4).
- 37.
CA 2006 s 823 (1).
- 38.
CA 2006 s 793.
- 39.
Certain companies are exempt from this obligation: companies with voting shares admitted to trading on an EEA regulated market, and in other markets specified by regulations; any other companies as specified by the Secretary of State by regulations (CA 2006 s 790B).
- 40.
This duty was introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, s 81, Schedule 3, Pt 1, para 1. Relevant regulations include: Information about People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2017, (SI 2017/693); the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 21A) Regulations (2016 (SI 2016/136)); Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/339); BEIS (2016).
- 41.
For the purposes of the PSC regime, CA 2006 s 790C(12) deems the following entities to be individuals: a corporation sole (an office held by a single person that has a separate legal existence from the person occupying the office, such as ministers of the Crown, the Treasury Solicitor or the holders of various ecclesiastical offices); a government or government department of a country or territory; an international organisation whose members include two or more countries tor territories (or their governments); a local authority or local government body in the United Kingdom.
- 42.
CA 2006, Schedule 1A, paragraphs 1-6.
- 43.
CA 2006, Schedule 1A, paragraph 18 (1). See also Practical Law Company (2017).
- 44.
CA 2006, Schedule 1A, paragraph 18 (3).
- 45.
For further details on the meaning and application of these provisions see Practical Law Company (2017).
- 46.
IA 1986 s 74(2)(d).
- 47.
7 & 8 Vict. c.110.
- 48.
18 & 19 Vict. c.133.
- 49.
[1897] AC 22.
- 50.
JH Ratner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Tradeand Industry and Others [1989] Ch 72 at 176, per LJ Rodger, citing Gower (1979), p. 100: “It follows from the fact that a corporation is a separate legal person that its members are not liable for its debts.”
- 51.
Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 3 WLR 1 at 9, per Lord Sumption.
- 52.
Kershaw (2012), p. 39.
- 53.
[1976] 1 WLR 852.
- 54.
Ibid. at 860.
- 55.
Ibid. at 861.
- 56.
Ibid at 860, per Lord Denning.
- 57.
Ibid.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
[1977] AC 774, [1976] 3 WLR 419.
- 60.
Ibid. at 807.
- 61.
1978 SC (HL) 90, 1978 SLT 159.
- 62.
[1979] 1 WLR 1198.
- 63.
Ibid. at 1208.
- 64.
[1990] Ch 433, [1990] BCLC 479.
- 65.
Ibid. at 513.
- 66.
[1996] BCC 486.
- 67.
Ibid. at 498.
- 68.
[2008] EWHC 233 (QB), 2008 WL 371042.
- 69.
[2011] EWHC 333 (Comm), [2012] BCC 182.
- 70.
[2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337.
- 71.
Ibid. at 345. The court makes a similar point at p 387, when it states that, in a contract between B and C, A should not be held responsible for B’s liabilities simply because A controls B and induced C to contract with B.
- 72.
[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 3 WLR 1.
- 73.
Ibid at [19].
- 74.
Ibid. at [28].
- 75.
Ibid.
- 76.
Ibid. at [34].
- 77.
Ibid. at [35]. See also Lord Neuberger at [62].
- 78.
Ibid at [106].
- 79.
Ibid. at [55]-[56].
- 80.
- 81.
See e.g. Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 1) [1980] 1 WLR 627; Kensington International Ltd v Congo [2005] EWHC 2684 (Comm), [2006] 2 BCLC 296; Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2006] EWHC 2564 (Ch), [2006] 8 WLUK 253.
- 82.
See Cabrelli (2010), p. 343.
- 83.
CA 2006 s 250. CA 2006 ss 156A–156B, introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 s 87, require all directors to be natural persons and prohibit the appointment of corporate bodies as directors (subject to certain exceptions). These provisions have not yet come into force.
- 84.
See Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Tjolle [1998] BCC 282 at 290; Re Kaytech International Plc [1999] BCC 390 at 402.
- 85.
CA 2006, s 251(1). See also Palmer and Morse (1992), pp. 8.217–8.224.
- 86.
Re Unisoft Group Ltd (No 3) [1994] BCC 766; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Becker [2003] 1 BCLC 565; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Deverell [2000] 2 BCLC 133 (CA).
- 87.
Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch), [2005] 7 WLUK 862.
- 88.
See also Clydebank Football Club Ltd v Steedman 2002 SLT 109 (OH) (holding that the parent-subsidiary relations was not enough to make the parent a shadow director of its subsidiary).
- 89.
Kemp and Handforth (2011) (online).
- 90.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Laing [1996] 2 BCLC 324 (Ch), [1997] 1 WLR 104; Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd (In Liquidation) [1994] BCC 161 (holding that individual and personal instructions from a director of the parent to the directors of the subsidiary could bring the former within the definition of a shadow director).
- 91.
- 92.
Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch), [2005] 7 WLUK 862.
- 93.
CA 2006, s 170(5).
- 94.
[2001] Ch 340, [2000] 2 BCLC 133.
- 95.
[2013] EWHC 3006 (Ch), [2013] BCC 771.
- 96.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Deverell [2001] Ch 340, [2000] 2 BCLC 133.
- 97.
CA 2006 S 170(1).
- 98.
Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258, [1983] 3 WLR 492; See also Palmer and Morse (1992), p. 8.2402.
- 99.
See also Palmer and Morse (1992), p. 8.3701 ff.
- 100.
Charterbridge Corporation v Lloyds Bank Limited [1970] Ch 62 (Ch), [1969] 3 WLR 122.
- 101.
Boulting v ACTT [1963] 2 QB 606, [1963] 2 WLR 529; Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd [1991] 1 AC 187, [1990] BCC 567; Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] 2 BCLC 427. See also Palmer and Morse (1992), supra note 85 at 8.2704–8.2706.
- 102.
Pergamon Press Ltd v Maxwell [1970] 1 WLR 1167.
- 103.
Charterbridge Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1970] Ch 62 (Ch), [1969] 3 WLR 122.
- 104.
At common law, this overarching duty was known as the duty to act in good faith in what the director considers to be in the best interests of the company of which he is a director, and not for any collateral purpose (Re Smith & Fawcett Limited [1942] Ch 304, [1942] 1 All ER 542). The interests of the company were equated with the interests of the shareholders generally (Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas [1951] Ch 286, [1950] 2 All ER 1120). Despite the change in terminology, the courts’ interpretation of this core fiduciary duty remains largely unchanged (see West Coast Capital (Lios) Limited [2008] CSOH 72).
- 105.
Thompson v The Renwick Group plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635, [2015] BCC 855.
- 106.
Commissioner of Taxpayer Audit and Assessment v Cigarette Company of Jamaica Ltd [2012] STC 1045, PC, at [14] per Lord Walker.
- 107.
CA 2006 s 172(1)(f). See also Mutual Life & Insurance Co of New York v Rank Organisation Ltd [1985] BCLC 11; Re BSB Holdings Ltd (No 2) [1996] 1 BCLC 155.
- 108.
CA 2006 s 173.
- 109.
CA 2006 s 175(1).
- 110.
See Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Macq 461 at 471; Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 at 124B-C; see also Bhullar v Bhullar [2003] 2 BCLC 241 at [27]-[31]; Eastford Ltd v Gillespie [2010] CSOH 132 at [17]-[18].
- 111.
The duty-duty conflict is mentioned in CA 2006 s 175 (7).
- 112.
CA 2005 s 175(2).
- 113.
CA 2006 s 175(4)(a).
- 114.
CA 2006 s 175(4)(b).
- 115.
CA 2006 s 180(4).
- 116.
Sharma v Sharma [2013] EWCA Civ 1287, [2014] BCC 73.
- 117.
Keech v Sandford (1726) 25 ER 223; Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134; Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46.
- 118.
Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2692 (Ch), [2014] 8 WLUK 33 at [72].
- 119.
Pergamon Press Limited v Maxwell [1970] 1 WLR 1167.
- 120.
London and Mashonaland Exploration Co v New Mashonaland Exploration Co [1891] WN 165; In Plus Group Ltd and others v John Albert Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 370, [2003] BCC 332.
- 121.
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer [1959] AC 324, [1958] 3 WLR 404.
- 122.
CA 2006 s 177(1).
- 123.
CA 2006 s 177(5) and (6). Service contract are covered separately in CA 2006 ss 188-189.
- 124.
CA 2006 s 190 and s 191.
- 125.
Persons ‘connected with’ a director are defined under CA 2006 s 252, and include a body corporate connected with a director (s 252(2)(b)). This is further defined in s 254(2) as controlling a 20% share of the share capital or being entitled to exercise or control more than 20% of the voting power in a general meeting.
- 126.
CA 2006 s 190 (2) and 4(b).
- 127.
Davies et al. (2016), p. 528.
- 128.
CA 2006 ss 197-202.
- 129.
CA 2006 s 203.
- 130.
CA 2006 s 176 (4).
- 131.
CA 2006 s 176 (2).
- 132.
CA 2006 s 256.
- 133.
Murad v Al-Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959, [2005] WTLR 1573.
- 134.
CA 2006 s 399. One exception arises when the parent company qualifies as small. A parent company will qualify as a small company in relation to a financial year if the group headed by it qualifies as small (CA 2006 s 383(1)). The requirements that a parent company or a group must meet to qualify for the small companies’ regime are provided under CA 2006 s 383. Another exception arises when the parent company is itself a subsidiary of another company established under the law of an EEA state, in which case the parent company above the intermediate parent will have the duty to prepare the group accounts (CA 2006 s 400(1) and s 401(1)).
- 135.
CA 2006 s 394.
- 136.
CA 2006 s 404 (1) and (2) and s 405 (1). Exceptionally, some undertakings may be excluded from consolidation (see CA 2006 s 405 (2)-(4)).
- 137.
The form and content of these accounts must also comply with Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Small Companies and Groups (Accounts and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2008 (when a small company chooses to prepare group accounts) or Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008, as applicable.
- 138.
For example, UK GAAP is mandatory where the parent is a charity (CA 2006 s 403(3)); the IAS is mandatory, inter alia, when a company in the group has securities admitted to trading on a regulated market of an EEA state (CA 2006, s 403(1)).
- 139.
CA 2006 s 407(1).
- 140.
CA 2006 s 415.
- 141.
CA 2006 s 414A.
- 142.
CA 2006 s 416(1).
- 143.
CA 2006 s 416(3).
- 144.
Large Companies Regulations Schedule 7 para 7. These Regulations impose on large companies additional disclosure obligations, concerning, inter alia, practices on employee information and consultation, greenhouse gas emissions, or political donations.
- 145.
CA 2006 s 415.
- 146.
CA 2006 s 414A(3) and ss 414C(8)-(10).
- 147.
CA 2006 s 414A(4).
- 148.
The non-financial information statement must be produced by companies with at least 500 employees, who are: a traded company; a banking company; an authorised insurance company; or company carrying on insurance market activity, as defined under CA 2006 s 1164 and s 1165.
- 149.
CA 2006 s 414CA. This requirement was introduced in 2006, as part of the UK implementation of the Non-financial Reporting Directive 2014/95/EU.
- 150.
CA 2006 s 414CA(2).
- 151.
CA 2006 s 414CB(1) and (2) and s 414CB(8).
- 152.
CDDA 1986, s1.
- 153.
Re Westmid Packing Services Ltd (No. 3) [1998] BCC 836 at 841; Re Swift 736 Ltd [1993] BCC 312 at 315.
- 154.
CDDA 1986, ss. 1, 6 and 12C and Schedule 1, as amended by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, s 106(1), (6).
- 155.
CDDA 1986 Schedule 1, Part I, paras 1-7.
- 156.
Re Genosysis Technology Management Ltd, Wallach v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2006] All E R 434. See also Charterbridge Corporation v Lloyds Bank Limited [1970] Ch 62 (Ch), [1969] 3 WLR 122.
- 157.
CDDA 1986 s 15A.
- 158.
CDDA 1986 s 15B. The compensation order provisions were introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
- 159.
CDDA 1986 s 22(5).
- 160.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Deverell & Another [2001] Ch 340, [2000] 2 All ER 365.
- 161.
CDDA 1986 s 8ZA(1).
- 162.
Ibid. s 8ZA(2) and (3).
- 163.
CA 2006 s 172(1).
- 164.
CA 2006 s 172(3). The same rule existed at common law—see Re HLC Environmental Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 2876 (Ch), [2014] BCC 337; West Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250; GHLM Trading Ltd v Maroo [2012] EWHC 61 (Ch), [2012] 2 BCLC 369; In the Matter of Capitol Films Ltd [2010] EWHC 3223 (Ch), [2011] 2 BCLC 359.
- 165.
Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and others, TLR 30 October 1997.
- 166.
Macpherson and another v European Strategic Bureau Limited [2000] 2 BCLC 683 (holding that in the vicinity of insolvency directors may not make distributions to shareholders or repay shareholders’ debt if this amounts to an informal winding up or a distribution of the company’s assets without proper provision for all the creditors); Capitol Films Ltd (In Administration) [2010] EWHC 2240 (Ch), [2010] 9 WLUK 57 (holding that near insolvency, directors cannot settle a claim against a third party without taking into account the interests of the general body of the company’s creditors).
- 167.
IA 1986 s 214(2)(b); Kudos Business Solutions Ltd (in Liquidation) [2011] EWHC 1436 (Ch), [2012] 2 BCLC 65.
- 168.
Re Marini Limited (The liquidator of Marini Limited v Dickenson & ors) [2003] EWHC 334 (Ch).
- 169.
Brooks v Armstrong [2015] EWHC 2289 (Ch), [2004] BCC 172 at [8].
- 170.
Ibid. at [276].
- 171.
IA 1986, s 251.
- 172.
Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 180; Gower and Davies, supra note 127 at 214.
- 173.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Deverell [2000] 2 BCLC 133 (CA).
- 174.
Keay (2014), p. 63.
- 175.
Re M.C. Bacon Ltd [1991] Ch 127, [1990] BCLC 607 at 132.
- 176.
Buchler v Talbot [2004] UKHL 9, [2004] 1 BCLC 281.
- 177.
- 178.
IA 1986, ss 246ZA—246ZC (introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015).
- 179.
CA 2006 s 993.
- 180.
IA 1986 s 213.
- 181.
The Cork Committee (1982), p. 398.
- 182.
Re Patrick and Lyon Ltd [1933] 1 Ch 786.
- 183.
Re Gerald Cooper Chemicals Ltd (In Liquidation) [1978] Ch 262, [1978] 2 WLR 866.
- 184.
Known as gratuitous alienations in Scotland.
- 185.
IA 1986 s 238.
- 186.
IA 1986 s 240.
- 187.
IA 1986 s 238(4).
- 188.
Reid v Ramlort [2004] EWCA Civ 800, [2005] 1 BCLC 331.
- 189.
IA 1986 s 423.
- 190.
West Mercia Safetywear Ltd. v Dodds [1988] BCLC 250.
- 191.
Aveling Barford Limited v Perion Limited [1989] BCLC 626.
- 192.
IA 1986 Schedule B1 para 75 provides for a similar claim against the administrator of a company put in administration.
- 193.
IA 1986 s 212(1).
- 194.
Holland v Revenue and Customs and another [2010] UKSC 51, [2011] 1 BCLC 141.
- 195.
IA 1986 s 212(3).
- 196.
Re Baltic Real Estate Ltd (No 2) [1993] BCLC 503.
- 197.
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer [1959] AC 324, [1958] 3 WLR 404; Nicholas v Soundcraft Electronics Lts [1993] BCLC 3 (CA); Re Grandactual Ltd [2005] EWHC 1415 (Ch), [2006] BCC 73.
- 198.
Ferran and Ho (2014), p. 27; Re Citybranch Group Ltd, Gross v Rackind [2004] EWCA Civ 815, [2005] BCC 11.
- 199.
Gross v Rackind [2004] EWCA Civ 815, [2005] BCC 11; Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 291, [2009] 2 BCLC 427.
- 200.
Re Soundcraft Magnetics [1993] BCLC 360.
- 201.
Gas Lightning Improvement Co Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1923] AC 723, [1923] 5 WLUK 56; British Thomson Houston Co Ltd v Sterling Accessories Ltd [1924] 2 Ch 33 at 38.
- 202.
VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 1 BCLC 179, at [141], per Lord Neuberger.
- 203.
[1951] 2 KB 366, [1951] 1 All ER 806, at 370.
- 204.
Re FG Films [1953] 1 All ER 615.
- 205.
Re Polly Peck plc [1996] 2 All ER 433 at 445-446.
- 206.
Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation [1939] 4 All ER116.
- 207.
Ferran and Ho (2014), p. 32; Smith Stone and Knight Ltd v Birmingham [1939] 4 All ER 116; Canada Rice Mills Ltd v R [1939] 3 All ER 991, PC; Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Lts v Lewellyn (Inspector of Taxes) [1957] 1 All ER 561 (HL).
- 208.
[2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 3 All ER 640.
- 209.
[1990] 2 AC 605, [1990] 2 WLR 358.
- 210.
[2012] EWCA Civ 525 [2012] 3 All ER 640 at [63].
- 211.
Ibid at [70].
- 212.
Ibid at [80].
- 213.
Ibid at [73]-[80].
- 214.
[2014] EWCA Civ 635, [2014] 2 BCLC 97.
- 215.
[2018] EWCA Civ 1532; [2018] BCC 959.
- 216.
Ibid. at 966.
- 217.
Ibid. at 967.
- 218.
[2018] EWCA Civ 191; [2018] B.C.C. 668.
- 219.
The claimants Unilever and Okpabi applied for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but as at the time of writing this report no decision has been made.
- 220.
[2017] EWCA Civ 1528, [2018] 1 WLR 3575 (under appeal with the UK Supreme Court).
- 221.
Ibid. at 3529.
- 222.
[2017] EWCA Civ 1528, [2018] 1 WLR 3575 at 3529.
- 223.
Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe, [2019] UKSC 20; [2019] 2 WLR 1051.
- 224.
Ibid. at [102].
- 225.
Ibid. at [61].
- 226.
Ibid.
References
Journal Articles
Cabrelli D (2010) The case against ‘Outsider Reverse’ veil piercing. J Corp Law Stud 10:343–366
Didcote F (2008) Controlling the abuse of limited liability: the effectiveness of the wrongful trading provision. Int Company Commer Law Rev 19:373–378
Han TC (2015) Veil piercing- a fresh start. J Bus Law 1:20–36
Hannigan B (2013) Wedded to Salomon: evasion, concealment and confusion on piercing the veil of the one-man company. Irish Jurist 50:11–39
Keay A (2014) Wrongful trading: problems and proposals. Northern Ireland Legal Q 65:63–79
Lee PW (2015) The enigma of veil-piercing. Int Company Commer Law Rev 26:28–34
Williams R (2015) What can we expect to gain from reforming the insolvent trading remedy? Modern Law Rev 78:55–84
Books
Davies PL et al (2016) Gower and Davies principles of modern company law, 10th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Ferran E, Ho LC (2014) Principles of corporate finance law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gower LCB (1979) Principles of modern company law, 4th edn. Stevens, London
Kershaw D (2012) Company law in context: text and materials, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Palmer F, Morse G (1992) Palmers company law, 25th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Online Publications
Kemp M, Handforth Z (2011) Shadow directors: keeping on the sidelines. Practical Law Company. https://tinyurl.com/y4yf9w9b
Practical Law Corporate (2017) PSC register: identifying people with significant control. Practical Law Company. https://tinyurl.com/y3tsludl
Other
The Company Law Review Steering Group (2000) Modern law for a competitive economy - completing the structure. DTI, London
The Cork Committee (1982) Report on insolvency law and practice
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (2016) Statutory Guidance on the meaning of ‘significant influence or control’ over companies in the context of the Register of People with Significant Control
The Walker Review (2009) A review of Corporate Governance in UK banks and other financial industry entities: final recommendations
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Valsan, R. (2020). National Report on the United Kingdom. In: Manóvil, R.M. (eds) Groups of Companies. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36697-1_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36697-1_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36696-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36697-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)