Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925]

Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619 dealt with the principle of lifting the corporate veil, a legal concept that separates a company's legal identity from that of its owners. In an unusual twist, the request to lift the corporate veil was made by the owner of the corporation himself.

Mr Macaura owned the Killymoon estate in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland, and sold the timber on the estate to Irish Canadian Sawmills Ltd. In exchange, he received 42,000 fully paid-up £1 shares in the company, making him the sole owner through nominees. Additionally, Mr Macaura became an unsecured creditor for £19,000. Subsequently, he obtained insurance policies from Northern Assurance, covering the timber against fire. However, the policies were taken out in Mr Macaura's name, not the company's.

Shortly after the insurance arrangement, a fire occurred, leading to a claim under the insurance policies. Northern Assurance refused to pay, contending that the timber belonged to the company, and as a separate legal entity, the company's owner, Mr Macaura, could not claim any compensation.

The House of Lords ruled against Mr Macaura, holding that the insurers were not liable under the contract. Lord Buckmaster delivered the primary judgment, supporting the insurers. Lord Atkinson concurred with this decision. Lord Sumner, in his concurrence, emphasised that Mr Macaura had no insurable interest in the timber because it did not belong to him. Despite owning almost all the shares in the company and the company owing him money, Mr Macaura could not insure the company's assets. Lord Sumner stressed that Mr Macaura's relation was to the company, not its goods, and therefore, he had no "concern in" the subject insured.

Lord Wrenbury and Phillimore also concurred with the judgment. The case reaffirmed the legal principle that the owner of a company is distinct from the company itself, and insurance policies should reflect the actual ownership of the insured assets. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining the separation between an individual's personal interests and those of a corporate entity.