翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Adams Township, Morgan County, Indiana ・ Adams Township, Mower County, Minnesota ・ Adams Township, Muskingum County, Ohio ・ Adams Township, Nemaha County, Kansas ・ Adams Township, Ohio ・ Adams Township, Parke County, Indiana ・ Adams Township, Pennsylvania ・ Adams Township, Ripley County, Indiana ・ Adams Township, Seneca County, Ohio ・ Adams Township, Snyder County, Pennsylvania ・ Adams Township, South Dakota ・ Adams Township, Walsh County, North Dakota ・ Adams Township, Wapello County, Iowa ・ Adams Township, Warren County, Indiana ・ Adams Township, Washington County, Ohio ・ Adams v Cape Industries plc ・ Adams v Lindsell ・ Adams v. Burke ・ Adams v. Howerton ・ Adams v. Robertson ・ Adams v. Tanner ・ Adams v. Texas ・ Adams v. United States ・ Adams Vacuum & Sewing building ・ Adams Violin Concerto ・ Adams Wildlife Sanctuary ・ Adams Woodframe Grain Elevator ・ Adams' Arkansas Infantry Regiment ・ Adams' Grammar School ・ Adams' Rangers Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Adams v Cape Industries plc ： ウィキペディア英語版 Adams v Cape Industries plc ''Adams v Cape Industries plc'' () Ch 433 is the leading UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. The decision's significance has been limited by the decision in ''Chandler v Cape plc'', holding that a direct duty may be owed in tort by a parent company to a person injured by a subsidiary. ==Facts== Cape Industries plc was a UK company, head of a group. Its subsidiaries mined asbestos in South Africa. They shipped it to Texas, where a marketing subsidiary, NAAC, supplied the asbestos to another company in Texas. The employees of that Texas company, NAAC, became ill, with asbestosis. They sued Cape and its subsidiaries in a Texas Court. Cape was joined, who argued there was no jurisdiction to hear the case. Judgment was still entered against Cape for breach of a duty of care in negligence to the employees. The tort victims tried to enforce the judgment in the UK courts. The requirement, under conflict of laws rules, was either that Cape had consented to be subject to Texas jurisdiction (which was clearly not the case) or that it was present in the US. So the question was whether, through the Texas subsidiary, NAAC, Cape Industries plc was ‘present’. For that purpose the claimants had to show in the UK courts that the veil of incorporation could be lifted and the two companies be treated as one. Scott J held that the parent, Cape Industries plc, could not be held to be present in the United States. The employees appealed. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Adams v Cape Industries plc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.