Macaura v Northern Assurance Ltd [1925] AC 619

Facts

  • Mr. Macaura was a majority shareholder and director of a company to which he had transferred timber.
  • Macaura insured the timber in his personal name after it became company property.
  • The timber was destroyed by fire, and Macaura sought to claim on the insurance policy taken in his own name for the loss.
  • The insurer denied liability on the basis that Macaura was not the legal owner of the timber at the time of loss.

Issues

  1. Whether a shareholder, even if in full control of a company, has an insurable interest in company property.
  2. Whether legal or equitable ownership is necessary for a valid insurable interest.
  3. Whether the principles of separate corporate personality prevent a shareholder from claiming company property as their own for insurance purposes.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that, upon transfer, the timber became the legal property of the company, not Macaura personally.
  • As Macaura had no legal or equitable interest in the timber, he had no insurable interest in it and could not claim under the policy.
  • The court reaffirmed that no shareholder has any proprietary right to the company’s assets, regardless of their shareholding or level of control.
  • The attempt to claim as an insured party on company property was rejected, upholding a strict application of the corporate veil.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of separate legal personality means that once property is transferred to a company, it belongs solely to the company and not to any individual shareholder.
  • Shareholders do not possess legal or equitable title to company assets; mere shareholding does not confer proprietary rights.
  • To support an insurance claim, an insurable interest in the legal or equitable sense is required; control or shareholding is insufficient.
  • The corporate veil shields a company from its shareholders and vice versa, and will not be pierced in the absence of fraud or improper conduct.
  • The regime of limited liability is maintained through the strict separation between company assets and shareholder interests.

Conclusion

Macaura v Northern Assurance Ltd [1925] AC 619 established that shareholders, however significant their interests, cannot insure company-owned assets in their own name due to lack of an insurable interest. This reinforces the foundational principle of separate legal personality, limiting shareholder rights over company property, and places the onus on correct identification of the legal owner in insurance and business practices.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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