The High Court considered an application for leave to appeal against a judgment that had declared the third and fourth respondents jointly and severally liable with the first and second respondents for two amounts owed to the applicant. The court said the applicants had not shown error in the earlier judgment's treatment of the papers, section 20(9) of the Companies Act, or the approach to piercing the corporate veil, and dismissed the leave to appeal application.
This may be relevant to parties involved in company liability disputes and leave to appeal applications where section 20(9) and corporate veil arguments are discussed.
Evidence from source
I do not agree with the applicants that the judgment conflated concepts of piercing the corporate veil with the application of section 20(9)
Supports: Plain summary sentence 2: the court addressed section 20(9) and piercing the corporate veil arguments.
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicants are to pay the costs
Supports: Plain summary sentence 2: the leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered.