A particularly severe restriction of the right of individuals held on remand comes with the normative regulations concerning visit entitlements. As a rule, in the Polish legal order an individual held on remand may be allowed a visit after the authority under whose charge he or she is detained has issued a visiting order. A refusal to issue a visiting order for an individual held on remand to see a close relative is a decision taken in the course of enforcement proceedings for which there is a separate appeal procedure, different from the basic form of control. Special grounds are also provided for such a refusal.
The present article, on the basis of the high-profile Chevron case, rethinks the principle of corporate veil within a corporate group. It tries to convince the reader that a plaintiff holding an environmental damages judgement should be able to enforce it against any company in the corporate group of defendant regardless of the fact that such company was not a defendant in the underlying action (the new test). To attain this goal, firstly, the basic notions as an “environmental damages judgement,” a “corporate group,” and “the corporate veil” are explained. The article then elaborates on the importance of the corporate veil principle. Furthermore, it describes what would currently constitute a potential ground for piercing of the corporate veil in Canada. Later on, it provides a three-level justification for why the veil, in the described circumstances, should be pierced. Finally, the new test regarding piercing the corporate veil is proposed.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.