个人陈述：案例说明

个人陈述：案例说明

Quintex Australian Finance Ltd诉Schroders Australian Ltd的案例说明了如何在group situation的案例中使用公司面纱(Ciro, and Symes, 2013)。这说明了在什么情况下可以对公司和相关子公司进行分组。1976年Walker v Wimborne案表明，Tess可以被认为是鞋业公司的一个独立的法律实体，仅与鞋业公司有关的交易的价值可以被考虑。在Walker vs. Brein的案例中，对于群体的构成有明确的定义。这种情况可以用来理解什么构成一个组。Industrial equity ltd .诉布莱克本案规定，母公司不能将子公司获得的资产作为支付投资者或公司债权人的资金(Ciro, and Symes, 2013)。这个案例解释了母公司和子公司之间的细微差别和关系。这些案例说明，皮革公司和展览公司将作为一个单一的实体来解释。
就保险而言，董事有责任为工人确立适当的职业要素。苔丝是这家公司的老板，也是唯一的全职员工。在这种情况下，保险公司可能不会以这个原因为由给她保险。但真正的问题并没有在《保险法》中说明。这是由2009年《公平工人法》规定的。这将涉及具体条款。下文将详细解释该案件的可能结论。公司面纱条款规定，苔丝是一个独立的实体，即使她是鞋业公司的所有者。但是《公司法》可以揭开公司的面纱。在这种情况下，苔丝需要考虑她所有的资产，包括鞋业公司和皮革公司。Tess需要提供鞋业公司和皮革子公司的合并财务报表。她不能声明皮革公司的利润可以用来支付母公司的股息。

个人陈述：案例说明

The case of Quintex Australian Finance Ltd v Schroders Australian ltd states that how the corporate veil can be used in the cases of group situation (Ciro, and Symes, 2013).This states in what cases the companies and the related subsidiary can be grouped. The case of Walker v Wimborne 1976 states that Tess can be considered to be a separate legal entity form the shoe company and the merits of the transactions of those related to the shoe company alone can be considered. In the case of Walker vs. Brein, there is clear definition as to what constitutes the group. This case can be used to understand about what constitutes a group. Industrial equity ltd vs. Blackburn states that the parent company cannot treat the assets earned by the subsidiary company as a fund for payment of the investors or the creditors of the company (Ciro, and Symes, 2013). This case explains the nuances and the relationship between the parent company and the subsidiary. These cases explain that the leather company and the show company will be used to explain as a single entity.
In the case of Insurance, it is the duty of director to establish proper occupational elements for the worker. Tess is the owner and the sole full time employee of the company. In this case, the insurance company would have probably not given her the insurance citing this as cause. But the real issue is not stated by the insurance act. This is governed by the Fair Worker Act 2009. This will deal with the specific clause. The probable conclusion for the case is explained in detail in the following. Corporate veil clause states that Tess is a separate entity, even though she is the owner of the shoe company. But there can be piercing of the corporate veil by the Corporation act. In this case, Tess needs to consider all of her asset including the shoe company and the leather company. Tess needs to provide a consolidated financial statement of the shoe company and the subsidiary leather company. She cannot state that the profits of the leather company can be used to pay of the dividends of the parent company.