Tunstall v Steigmann
| Tunstall v Steigmann | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [1962] 2 QB 593 |
| Keywords | |
| Piercing, veil, corporation | |
Tunstall v Steigmann [1962] 2 QB 593 is a UK company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil.
Facts
Mrs Steigmann, the landlord, wanted to acquire possession of property which she had leased out to a tenant Mrs Tunstall, so that she could run her own butchery business there. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 section 30(1)(g) prevented landlords who wished to terminate tenancies from opposing a tenant's application for a new tenancy, unless there were exceptional circumstances. An exceptional circumstance under the Act included the landlord wishing to occupy the premises themselves to carry on a new business. Mrs Steigmann had given Mrs Tunstall notice. But then, Mrs Steigmann then decided to incorporate her business. Mrs Tunstall claimed that the company was now carrying on the business, rather than Mrs Steigmann as the landlord. Because the company was a separate legal person, Mrs Tunstall argued that Mrs Steigmann did not have the right to repossession under the statute.
Judgment
Ormerod LJ held that the incorporated business of the landlord was entitled to repossess the property. He asked if there was ‘anything to merit a departure from the main principle of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd and continued:
| “ | [A departure from Salomon required...] ‘that a company and the individual or individuals forming a company were separate legal entities, however complete the control might be by one or more of those individuals over the company.... any departure... has been made to deal with special circumstances when a limited company might well be a facade concealing the true facts. | ” |
Wilmer LJ and Danckwerts LJ concurred.