Paramount public interest (or peeping the veil)
In a few cases[34], the court has disregarded the separate legal personalities because there was an overriding public interest to be served.[35] It is referred to as paramount public interest[36] or peeping the veil[37] according to some scholars. However, it will not be discussed here because such non-commercial elements as nationality and war are concerned made it nearly a public law question.
2 Practical application thereto
By virtue of the theoretical analyses above, the application of disregard of corporate personality in a company group context in practice can be summarized as:[38]
i Subsidiary''s grossly under-capitalisaion.[39]
ii Commingled business affairs to such extent to be regarded as a puppet or agent.
iii Subsidiary a mere facade for perpetrating a fraud or improper purposes.
iv Company group tortious liability.
Conclusion
Objective to subjective and reasons behind:
As we can see, the standard the court relied upon has growing to some extent from objective to subjective.[40] As one of the main objective tests, single entity argument, which is unreasonable (or at least arguable) from both economic and legal points in my opinion, has been criticized and abandoned by House of Lords after Woolfson. Or, at least, ''the concept of the group as a single enterprise should be used with caution.''[41] Recent cases seem indicate this enterprise doctrine has lost ground.[42] The other one, i.e. agency argument, seems unlikely to apply to a broad extent as a result of the strictness and difficulties in proof.
Subjective tests are gradually falling into a dominant position. Obviously, ''interest of justice'' rule is individually inapplicable notwithstanding the wording of decisions always using ''justice required''. Along with the previously discussed defects, it can also be backed and summarized by the wording of Staughton LJ that ''the creation or purchase of a subsidiary company with minimal liability, which will operate with the parent''s funds and on the parent''s directions but not expose the parent to liability, may not seem to some the most honest way of trading. But it is extremely common in the international shipping industry and perhaps elsewhere.''[43] It can only be regarded as an influential element adherent to other tests. In the popular and well-recognised facade test, the court declined to ''attempted a comprehensive definition'',[44] with adequate space left for equitable discretion and individual fairness as well.
