Skip to content
The Law Easy
Case law Company Law (Corporate Law)

Macaura v. Northern Assurance Company Limited

The House of Lords held that Macaura, who held almost all the shares of a company and was also its large unsecured creditor, had no insurable interest in timber owned by that company. The case matters because it shows clearly that the property of a company is not the property of its shareholders.

Published

Case at a glance

Court
House of Lords
Subject
Company Law (Corporate Law)
Cover: Macaura
On this page

Facts

Macaura owned an estate in Northern Ireland with a large quantity of timber. He sold all the timber to a company, and in return he received almost all the shares of that company. He was also a large unsecured creditor of the company.

However, he insured the timber against fire in his own name, not in the name of the company. Soon after, a fire destroyed almost all the timber, and Macaura claimed under his insurance.

Issues

Whether Macaura, as the holder of almost all the shares and as a large unsecured creditor of the company, had an insurable interest in the timber that belonged to the company.

Judgment

The House of Lords held that Macaura had no insurable interest in the timber.

The timber belonged to the company, not to Macaura. A shareholder, even one holding almost all the shares, has no legal or equitable interest in any particular property of the company. As an unsecured creditor, he also had no interest in any particular asset of the company. Therefore his claim failed.

Importance

The case is a classic illustration of the separate legal personality of a company. It shows that even a person who almost entirely owns a company cannot treat the company's assets as his own. Students should know it when answering questions on corporate personality, the difference between a shareholder and the company, and the practical consequences of incorporation.

Easy explanation

Macaura had a lot of timber. He sold it to a company and got almost all the company's shares in return. So, in practical terms, it felt like the timber was still "his". He took out a fire insurance policy on the timber in his own name. Then the timber burned down.

The court said: no, the timber was not yours any more. It belonged to the company, and the company is a separate person in law. Owning shares means you own a part of the company, not the company's things. Being a creditor of the company also did not give him rights over any particular asset. Since he had no legal interest in the timber, he could not claim insurance for its loss. The policy should have been taken in the company's name.

Practical example

Hypothetical: Prince holds 99% of the shares of Prince Logistics Pvt. Ltd., which owns a warehouse. Prince insures the warehouse against fire in his personal name. A fire destroys the warehouse and Prince claims from the insurer. Applying the Macaura principle, the claim would fail, because the warehouse belongs to the company, not to Prince. The insurance should have been taken in the name of Prince Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Key points

  • Macaura sold his timber to a company in exchange for almost all its shares and was also its large unsecured creditor.
  • He insured the timber in his own name; a fire destroyed almost all of it.
  • The House of Lords held he had no insurable interest in the timber.
  • A shareholder, even holding almost all the shares, has no legal or equitable interest in any particular company property.
  • An unsecured creditor has no interest in any particular asset of the company.
  • Principle: company property is not shareholders' property, so it must be insured in the company's name.

Video explanation

Case explained

Macaura v. Northern Assurance

12:09 Lecture page Watch on YouTube

Practise Company Law (Corporate Law) MCQs

24 questions. Every answer comes with an explanation and the legal provision behind it.

Practise now

Make this page yours

Sign in to keep private notes and highlights on this case. Free, and only you can see them.

Sign in Create account

Judgments

Related cases

Salomon v. Salomon

House of Lords

The House of Lords held that a validly registered company is a separate legal person from its members, even when one person holds almost all its shares. So Aron Salomon was not personally liable for the company's debts, and as a secured debenture holder he was paid before the unsecured creditors. The case is the foundation of modern company law and the leading authority on corporate personality.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Foss v. Harbottle

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Two shareholders sued the directors of their company for selling their own land to the company at an excessive price and misapplying its property. The court dismissed the suit because a wrong done to the company must be remedied by the company itself, and the majority could decide whether to sue or could approve what had been done. The case is the foundation of the majority rule in company law and gave rise to the proper plaintiff rule and the rule of internal management.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Gilford

Court of Appeal

Horne, a former managing director bound by a promise not to solicit his old employer's customers, set up a new company and solicited those customers through it. The Court of Appeal held that the new company was a mere cloak or sham formed to escape his promise, and granted an injunction against both Horne and the company. The case is a leading example of lifting the corporate veil where a company is used to escape a legal obligation.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Daimler v. Continental Tyre

House of Lords

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.

Company Law (Corporate Law)

Study notes

Read the law behind it