Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre
During the First World War, the House of Lords held that a company registered in England may acquire an enemy character if the persons in real control of its affairs are enemies. The case matters because it shows that in wartime the court may look behind a company's separate legal personality to see who really controls it. It is the leading example of the 'enemy character' ground for lifting the corporate veil.
Published
Case at a glance
- Court
- House of Lords
- Subject
- Company Law (Corporate Law)
On this page
Facts
During the First World War, Continental Tyre and Rubber Company Limited, a company registered in England, sued Daimler Company Limited for a debt for goods supplied.
All the shares of Continental Tyre except one were held by Germans living in Germany, and all its directors were Germans. Only the secretary, who held one share, lived in England.
Daimler refused to pay, arguing that paying the money would amount to trading with the enemy.
Issues
1. Can a company registered in England acquire an enemy character during war because the persons who really control it are enemies?
2. Should Continental Tyre's action to recover the debt be allowed to proceed?
Arguments
Daimler argued that paying the debt to Continental Tyre would amount to trading with the enemy, because the company's shareholders (except one) and its directors were Germans living in Germany.
Judgment
The House of Lords held that a company registered in England may acquire an enemy character if the persons in real control of its affairs are enemies.
The House of Lords then dismissed the action, because it had been started without proper authority.
Legal principles
In time of war, the court may look behind a company, ignoring its formal status as a separate legal entity, to see who really controls it. A company registered in England may acquire an enemy character if the persons in real control of its affairs are enemies. This is the 'enemy character' ground for lifting the corporate veil.
Importance
This case is the first and classic example of the 'enemy character' group of cases in which courts lift the corporate veil. Students must know it as an exception to the rule that a company is a separate legal person distinct from its members. In exams it is usually cited along with other veil-lifting cases such as Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman (fraud or evasion of obligations), In re Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Petit (tax evasion) and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (fraud on the public).
Easy explanation
Normally, a company is treated as a separate person, different from the people who own and run it. Continental Tyre was registered in England, so on paper it was an English company.
But during the First World War, almost all its shareholders and all its directors were Germans living in Germany, which was the enemy country. Only the secretary, who had just one share, lived in England. When Continental Tyre sued Daimler for money owed for goods, Daimler said that paying would be like trading with the enemy.
The House of Lords agreed that a company can become an 'enemy' company if the people really controlling it are enemies, even if it is registered in England. So in wartime, the court can look behind the company's name and registration to see who is really in charge. The case itself was dismissed because it had been started without proper authority.
Practical example
Hypothetical: During a war between two countries, Prince runs a business in India and owes money to a company registered in India. Although the company is registered in India, all its shares except one are held by Farhan and Aadil, who are citizens of the enemy country and live there, and they are also its only directors. Zoya, the company secretary, holds one share and lives in India. When the company sues Prince for the money, applying the Daimler principle, the court may look behind the company's Indian registration and treat it as having an enemy character, because the people in real control of it are enemies.
Key points
- Decided by the House of Lords during the First World War.
- Continental Tyre was registered in England, but all shares except one and all directors were German.
- A company may acquire an enemy character if the persons in real control of its affairs are enemies.
- In wartime, the court may look behind a company to see who really controls it (lifting the corporate veil).
- The action was dismissed because it had been started without proper authority.
- Leading case for the 'enemy character' ground of lifting the corporate veil.
Video explanation
Case explained
Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre
Practise Company Law (Corporate Law) MCQs
24 questions. Every answer comes with an explanation and the legal provision behind it.
Make this page yours
Sign in to keep private notes and highlights on this case. Free, and only you can see them.