Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

High Court Ruling Reveals Downsides of the Corporate Veil

Everyone knows that the corporate veil has the advantage of shielding directors from personal liability. However, far fewer people are aware of its downsides. In one case which illustrates this point, a businessman who dealt with a bank entirely through his company failed to establish that he was himself the bank's customer.

The businessman was a director and the sole shareholder of a company which was alleged to have been mis-sold certain interest rate hedging products by the bank. Following a review of such sales by the Financial Services Authority, the bank agreed to pay the company almost £2.4 million. The payment was made voluntarily, without admission of liability, and was expressed to be in final settlement of all the company's complaints, claims and causes of action.

However, the businessman subsequently launched proceedings against the bank in his own right as a 'private person', within the meaning of Section 138 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It was said that he had suffered personal loss due to the bank's alleged breaches of conduct of business rules.

In dismissing his claim, however, the High Court found that the rules were designed to protect bank customers and clients. The businessman did not fall within that category as he had not had any personal dealings with the bank. The company had already received redress for its loss and a further claim by its only shareholder would involve an element of double recovery. The bank was granted summary judgment on the businessman's claim, which had no real prospect of success.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.