lifting the corporate veil

Are the judges trying to squeeze justice out a stone by “lifting the corporate veil “ in cases that involve death instead of holding corporations more responsible.
Purpose of the paper

The purpose of this paper would be to examine a number of representative cases, and thereby criticise the boundary conditions for lifting the Corporate veil i.e. the the arguments that have been appled for the transition between Corporate and Individual (Directors / Staff) responsibilities. In recent cases of Corporate manslaughter, the courts have shown more likelihood to lift the veil and prosecute the Directors for gross negligent manslaughter rather than the Corporation as a whole. Given that the Directors tend to have more limited means than the Corporation, the judgments suggest that the courts, in these circumstances, are trying to ‘squeeze justice out of stone’, and thereby limit the entitlement of defendants. A further example is the recently decided case of Prest v Petrodel, a divorce case. These cases can be said to undermine the principle of Corporate personality and limited liability, in a way that does not always favour defendants.
Basic breakdown of the paper
Introduction
-Historical development of the corporate veil doctrine

Lifting the veil in Manslaughter
– Pre-act cases
-Position of the judges
– Post act cases and the
– Position of the judges
Please also add comparisons to other jurisdictions.

– Is there a commonality/ reason why the judges tend to do this i.e does it matter if it was a public disaster to private case, does health and safety have anything to do with it.

These is just a basic guideline of what my supervisor recommended so please try as much as possible to include this in the write up, also please make the grammar as simple as possible.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂