Lee v. Lee's Air Farming, [1961] AC 12

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Denise is a commercial pilot who establishes Coastal Horizons Ltd as its sole shareholder and director. She signs a formal service contract with the company to serve as its chief pilot for aerial tours. Following an in-flight accident, she submits a worker’s compensation claim under an insurance policy held by Coastal Horizons Ltd. The insurer disputes the claim, arguing that Denise’s complete control of the company invalidates any employment relationship. Denise, however, maintains that she and Coastal Horizons Ltd are separate legal persons.


Which of the following best reflects how the principle of separate legal personality would apply to Denise’s employment status with Coastal Horizons Ltd?

Introduction

The case of Lee v Lee’s Air Farming [1961] AC 12 is important in company law, especially regarding the principle of separate legal personality. This principle, set in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, states that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, even if one person owns all the shares. Lee v Lee’s Air Farming explains this principle, particularly in situations where one person has different roles within a company, acting as both director and employee. Key needs for a valid employment contract are shown, despite the sole ownership and directorship of the company by the deceased. The Privy Council's judgment clearly explains the importance of the separate legal personality of a company, regardless of the number of shareholders.

The Facts of the Case

Catherine Lee’s husband, Geoffrey Lee, created Lee’s Air Farming Ltd. He owned all but one of the company’s shares and was the sole managing director. He also worked as the company's chief pilot, under a formal contract of service. Mr. Lee died in an aerial topdressing accident while doing his job as a pilot. Mrs. Lee sought worker's compensation under the New Zealand Workers' Compensation Act 1922. The claim depended on whether Mr. Lee was a "worker" under the Act, which needed an employment relationship between the deceased and the company.

The Lower Courts' Decisions

The New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected Mrs. Lee's claim, saying that a person cannot make a contract with themselves. As Mr. Lee controlled the company, the court saw him and the company as one, thus stopping the chance of an employment contract between them. This thinking denied the separate legal existence of Lee’s Air Farming Ltd.

The Privy Council's Judgment

The Privy Council reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, stressing the importance of the separate legal personality principle set in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd. The Privy Council found that Mr. Lee and Lee’s Air Farming Ltd were separate legal entities that could make contracts with each other. The fact that Mr. Lee owned almost all the shares and was the managing director did not cancel the company's separate legal existence. The Privy Council found that a valid contract of service existed between Mr. Lee, as an employee, and Lee’s Air Farming Ltd., as the employer. The company, through its managing director (Mr. Lee himself), had the legal power to hire Mr. Lee as a pilot.

The Implications of Lee v Lee’s Air Farming

This decision has wide effects for company law. It strengthens the principle of separate legal personality and makes clear that a sole shareholder and director can also be an employee of the company. This difference is important for various legal uses, including insurance claims, worker's compensation, and taxation. The case shows the importance of formal contracts and the correct handling of corporate roles to keep the separation between the company and its members. By recognizing Mr. Lee’s dual role as both director and employee, the Privy Council kept the basic principle that a company is a separate legal entity, able to make contractual relationships even with its own controlling shareholder.

The Separate Legal Personality Principle

The principle of separate legal personality, central to Lee v Lee’s Air Farming, is basic to modern company law. It allows limited liability for shareholders and gives a clear structure for business operations. This principle, confirmed in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd, allows a company to own property, make contracts, sue and be sued, all in its own name. This case further confirmed the principle that even in single-person companies, the separate legal personality principle applies. The ability of one person to act in multiple roles within a company, as shown in Lee v Lee’s Air Farming, gives flexibility and operational effectiveness, particularly for small businesses.

Conclusion

The judgment in Lee v Lee’s Air Farming gives a clear explanation of the separate legal personality principle in the context of one-person companies. The Privy Council's decision confirms that a company, even one managed by a single person, is separate from its shareholders and directors. This separation allows for valid legal relationships, such as employment contracts, between the company and its members. The case stresses the legal effectiveness of filling various roles within a company structure and strengthens the principles first set in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd. The decision has had a lasting impact on company law, giving clarity and legal certainty for single shareholder-director companies, ensuring that legal formalities and contractual agreements are kept even when dealing with a single controlling person. This keeps the key difference between the company and its controllers, maintaining the integrity of the separate legal personality principle.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal