Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd Assignments Solution

Assessment criteria

Please review the marking rubric attached carefully for the marking criteria. As you will note, this assessment will measure your ability to:

• Understand and explain the decisions in Salomon – Criteria one (40%)
• Advise on the preferred decision based on the policy implications – Criteria two (40%)
• Present & reference – Criteria three (20%)

Course learning outcomes

This assessment is relevant to the following course learning outcomes:

• CLO1: Critique the broad theoretical basis of company law and policy implications from a company law perspective.
• CLO2: Create legal arguments and analysis on company law issues.

Assessment Details

Although corporate personality was created by statute in the first half of the nineteenth century, its full significance was not appreciated until the House of Lords’ decision in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, which overruled Vaughan Williams J at first instance and the Court of Appeal, both of which had ruled against Mr. Salomon. The current Attorney-General is revisiting this doctrine and would like you to:

• Critically analyse the decisions of the House of Lords and the lower courts (High Court and Court of Appeal) in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897].

You will be writing to the Minister and so the paper should be written at a suitable professional level. Please ensure that your analysis includes:

• The factual background of the case,
• A comparison of the reasoning of the lower courts (High Court and Court of Appeal) with that of the House of Lords,
• A reflection on which decision you agree with, based on the broader policy implications, with justification for your preference.

The policy brief should be addressed to the Minister and prepared in a report or essay format, with clear headings and sub-headings. The format you should use to present your answer is as a legal essay addressed to the Attorney General. A legal essay is one flowing piece of writing which has an introduction (a beginning); a body (the main part - within which you will have headings and subheadings);

The lower courts decision are also referred to in the House of Lords decision. For completion, the lower courts original decisions are also provided here (High Court decision by Vaughan Williams J from page 323 and Court of Appeal by Lindley, Lopes and Kay L, JJ from page 336) – [1895] 2 Ch. 323 Salomon Court of Appeal.pdf

You are then expected to conduct wider research identifying suitable journal articles that provide support for your preferred decision based on the policy implications. This can include primary and secondary sources (peer-reviewed journal articles and textbooks). You should avoid using general websites for information unless they represent credible and verifiable information such as from government regulators i.e. ASIC. As guidance, you are expected to cite at least 3 peer-reviewed references (articles published in academic journals) and you should aim to provide at least one reference or citation for every 200 words.

Summary of Assessment Requirements

This assessment focuses on the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 and its implications on corporate personality and company law. Students are required to prepare a professional legal essay addressed to the Attorney-General in the form of a policy brief. The assessment specifically measures the ability to:

1. Understand and explain the decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords in Salomon (40%).
2. Advise on the preferred decision by evaluating broader policy implications (40%).
3. Present the paper in a professional, well-referenced format (20%).

The key elements to include are:

• The factual background of the case.
• A comparative analysis of the reasoning in the lower courts versus the House of Lords.
• A critical reflection on which decision is preferable, with justification based on policy implications.
• Use of credible academic sources with at least three peer-reviewed journal articles.
• Clear structure with introduction, body, and conclusion.

The learning outcomes covered are:

• CLO1: Critique the theoretical basis of company law and related policy implications.
• CLO2: Create legal arguments and analysis on company law issues.

Step-by-Step Guidance Process by the Academic Mentor

The Academic mentor guided the student through a structured approach to ensure all assessment criteria were met.

Step 1: Understanding the Task

• The mentor first explained the importance of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd as the foundation of corporate personality.
• The student was asked to carefully read the case decisions (High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords) to understand the differing judicial perspectives.
• The marking rubric was reviewed together to align the work with assessment expectations.

Step 2: Structuring the Essay

• The mentor guided the student to adopt a legal essay format suitable for a policy brief addressed to the Attorney-General.
• Suggested structure:
  • Introduction (overview of corporate personality and importance of Salomon).
  • Factual Background (case facts, key legal issues).
  • Lower Courts’ Decisions (reasoning of Vaughan Williams J, Lindley, Lopes, and Kay L, JJ).
  • House of Lords’ Decision (contrast in reasoning and final ruling).
  • Critical Reflection (preferred decision with policy justification).
  • Conclusion (summary of findings and recommendation).

Step 3: Research and Sources

• The mentor emphasized using peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks, and legal commentaries instead of unreliable online sources.
• Guidance was provided on identifying at least three strong peer-reviewed articles to support the argument.
• The student was shown how to integrate citations and maintain one reference for approximately every 200 words.

Step 4: Analysis and Critical Thinking

• The mentor encouraged the student to go beyond case description and critically compare the reasoning between courts.
• Discussions were held on policy implications, such as protecting creditors versus recognizing the separate legal entity doctrine.
• The student was guided to reflect and justify a preferred decision (aligning with modern corporate law principles).

Step 5: Presentation and Referencing

• The mentor highlighted the importance of professional tone, legal language, and structured presentation.
• Referencing was checked to ensure accuracy, consistency, and compliance with academic standards.
• The essay was polished for clarity, coherence, and flow.

Final Outcome

Through this step-by-step process, the student successfully:

• Critically analysed the reasoning of the lower courts and the House of Lords in Salomon.
• Developed a well-argued preference for the House of Lords decision, justified with broader policy reasoning.
• Produced a professionally written legal essay addressed to the Attorney-General with clear headings and flow.
• Incorporated at least three peer-reviewed references and adhered to proper referencing guidelines.

Learning Objectives Achieved

• CLO1: The student critiqued the theoretical foundations of company law and policy considerations surrounding separate legal personality.
• CLO2: The student demonstrated strong legal analysis, argumentation, and research skills, effectively applying them to a landmark case.

Get the Best Out of This Assignment Solution

This sample solution has been prepared by our academic experts and is available for you to download and review as a study reference.

Important: Submitting this sample as your own work may lead to plagiarism issues. Use it responsibly to understand the structure, referencing style, and depth of analysis required for your assignments.

If you want a 100% original, plagiarism-free assignment tailored to your topic and requirements, our team of professional academic writers can deliver a fresh solution written from scratch, ensuring high quality, proper referencing, and on-time delivery.

Why order a fresh assignment?

• Custom-written by subject experts
• Guaranteed plagiarism-free content
• Properly referenced (APA, MLA, Harvard, etc.)
• On-time delivery with 24/7 support