Footnotes (89)



Donoghue v. Salomon in the High Court

Ewan McGaughey

King's College London - School of Law

November 2, 2011

[2011] Journal of Personal Injury Law 249

Chandler v. Cape plc decided that a parent company was liable for asbestos injuries of an insolvent subsidiary’s employee, because the parent could exercise control over the subsidiary. This article recounts the case’s facts, assesses the reasoning and elaborates the potential implications. It posits that this decision, aside from being based on sound authority, is consistent both with limited liability as a restricted exception to the law of obligations, only justified so far as creditors may truly and freely opt out, and with the general law of tort, which holds people liable for the actions of third parties when they may exercise control. Four main questions over the implications are raised: can controlling parties be liable for any torts? Can any directors or shareholders be liable? What possibilities are there for tort claimants abroad to sue UK multinational parent companies? And how far beyond shareholding might a controlling relationship extend?

Number of Pages in PDF File: 20

Keywords: Corporate veil, tort, limited liability

JEL Classification: K12, K13, K22, K31, K32, K33

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: March 23, 2013  

Suggested Citation

McGaughey, Ewan, Donoghue v. Salomon in the High Court (November 2, 2011). [2011] Journal of Personal Injury Law 249. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2237965 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2237965

Contact Information

Ewan McGaughey (Contact Author)
King's College London - School of Law ( email )
Somerset House East Wing
London, WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,963
Downloads: 310
Download Rank: 76,094
Footnotes:  89