Assignment One Answer
Wendy Shockett recently closed her traffic, ceased to trading, but her business non in receivership and liquidation, and has not been removed from the Companies Register.
There atomic number 18 two shareholders in the caller. Mile who is Wendys husband hold two shares. Wendy Shockett, who is the sole director of the companionship hold rest of the shares.
Wendy lodged an covering with Work and Income for a means tested benefit after closed her business. The application has been declined because there are two bank accounts that belonging to the attach to has assets give-up the ghosted the statutory limit.
There is the merged wipe out discovers a company from its shareholders. Lift the corporate veil will make shareholder personal liable, which means the assets exceed the statutory limit. She is not entitled to the benefit.
Who accept the funds in two bank accounts?
Can the corporate veil be get up?
Relevant Statute and topic law
Case: Salomon v Salomon and Co Ltd 
Lee v Lees Air Farming Ltd 
R v McCurdy 
Re Grasslands Farms Ltd 
Coleman v Myers 
Re Securitibank Ltd (No.2) 
Savill v Chase Holdings (Wellington) Ltd
Chen v Butterfield (1996)
Official Assignee v 15 Insoll Avenue Ltd 
Preston v International compute Ltd
The business has been closed and ceased to trading, but the business not in receivership and liquidation, the most important thing is the company has not been removed from the Companies Register, which means the company not alone ceased from the market, it still exists.
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper