Carlton Communications plc v The Football League

English Contract Law

Carlton Communications plc v The Football League
‘Football’ by Anthony Barrow

The phrase ‘subject to contract’ is pivotal to the preservation of legal rights, particularly when negotiating for multi-million pound contracts. On this occasion, the eagerness of a national sports fraternity overtook the urgency for a logical and constructive approach to long-term franchise agreements, resulting in an outcome none would have wished for.

In June 2000, the Football League entered into a contract for licensing rights with ITV Digital (or ONDigital as they were then known), who themselves were subsidiaries to both Carlton Communications Plc and Granda Media Plc. Having begun negotiations in April 2000, ONDigital were extended permissions to tender for contracts not exceeding £10m, whereupon this particular bid was now worth in excess of £240m, which therefore required the oversight of Granda and Carlton, but nothing more.

In a document titled ‘Initial Bid for Audio-Visual Rights Football League 2001/2 – 2003/4 ONDigital’ Executive Director Graeme Stanley expressed within the Financial Arrangements section, that:

“ONdigital and its shareholders will guarantee all funding to the FL outlined in this document.”

While noting that as with the remainder of the document, all statements therein were ‘subject to contract’ and therefore not binding upon any parties.

During the negotiation period, the value of the contracts increased to £315m, and at the point of their contracting, express notice was given in clause 18, which read:

“18. ONdigital and FL shall use their best endeavours to execute a long form agreement within 60 days which will be negotiated with reference to the Football League Pre-Tender Document of 27th March 2000…and will include clauses such as standard legal boilerplate, confidentiality, compensation for ONdigital if there are significant changes in competition structure which adversely affect the value of the rights granted to ONdigital, minimum broadcast commitments, quality guarantees for programmes and competitions and the like.”

In December 2001, talks began which centred around the alleged winding down of ONDigital, and so the claimants proposed that the defendants Carlton and Granda were now liable as guarantors for any sums due, which at the point of litigation, was little under £134m. As was expected, the defendants noted that while assisting as a parent company, at no point did they enter into a contract with the claimants, and as such, were not responsible for any ONDigital debts outstanding.

Relying upon the comments made in the pre-contract documentation, as well as a vague mention of guarantees in Clause 18, the court examined how corporate contracting and personal liability are distinctly different animals. With reference to principles espoused in Salomon v Salomon, Kerr LJ had himself expressed in JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry how:

“The crucial point on which the House of Lords overruled the Court of Appeal in that landmark case was precisely the rejection of the doctrine that agency between a corporation and its members in relation to the corporation‟s contracts can be inferred from the control exercisable by the members over the corporation or from the fact that the sole objective of the corporation’s contracts was to benefit the members.”

While due reference was given to the Statute of Frauds 1677, in which s.4 clearly explains how:

“No action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt default or miscarriage of another person unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.”

While it was further noted that in ‘Chitty on Contracts’, paragraph 4-022 stressed how:

“Apart from the exceptional case of a written offer signed by one party and accepted orally by the other, the writing must acknowledge the existence of a contract. It is now settled, after some hesitation, that a letter expressed to be ‘subject to contract’ is not in itself a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute.”

This rendered any argument for financial guarantee fatal to the claim, and left the court no choice but to exempt the defendants from all liability relating to damages for breach of contract, while holding that:

“[A] subject to contract proposal is the antithesis of or at the least incompatible with a unilateral offer. The former is not open to acceptance; it is the essence of the latter that it is.”

Lifting the Corporate Veil

Insight | March 2017

Lifting the Corporate Veil
Image: ‘NY City Brooklyn Bridge’ by Ylli Haruni

As a doctrine under question, the effects of lifting the corporate veil can be far-reaching if supported through case law, and yet it appears that the judiciary are reluctant to apply it unless under extreme circumstances, and even then with some trepidation.

The primary function of ‘lifting’ or ‘piercing’ the veil of corporations is one of transparency. As is no stranger to the world of enterprise, many an entrepreneur has undoubtedly found themselves at odds with where the boundaries are with conversion of assets, or even fiduciary duties in line with corporate ownership. When matters reach a level that requires legal intervention, the venturing of the courts into financial accounts and expenditure records, is something that rests uneasily on the shoulders of judges.

It is not uncommon after all for businessmen and investors to construct fake companies to provide cover for illegal dealings, no more than shareholders to dominate the actions of their corporations under the guise of boardroom decision making. Paradoxically, it is precisely this subterfuge that beckons court intrusion, and yet for reasons that can be appreciated in their overall meaning, it does not bode well for the victims of those immoral undertakings when the rule of law refuses to fully extend.

Starting at the roots of this clearly under utilised principle, it is important to understand  that supply always creates demand, and so examination of how this doctrine has flourished reveals that the limited liability of incorporation almost invites abuse, regardless of the stakes in hand.

Salomon v Salomon, which dates back to 1897, is considered the birthplace of limited liability, as during the liquidation of a failed business, the shareholder and company were held as separate entities, and therefore unencumbered by obligation to one another. This perhaps dangerous distinction, served well the rule of law, but consequently opened the way to defendants establishing unaccountability for the deviances behind insolvency, or the withholding of property release during matrimonial disputes, as was seen in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, where despite having grounds to ‘pierce’, the judges went instead with beneficial interest accrued through powers conferred under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Since Prest is now considered the leading authority on the protection or exposure of corporate misdeeds, it might pay to look at overseas opinion.

Despite taking a similar vein in most U.S. courts, the small State of Delaware has become reputed as the home for around sixty-five percent of the Fortune 500 companies, and the reasons are clear. Aside from most other county-wide laws shared between States, there appears to be consolidated support for the protection of the corporate veil, under the strongly held belief that without it, the wheels of commerce simply cannot turn. A notable 2014 case Cornell Glasgow LLC. v. Nichols, is now considered the poster boy for the prevention of access to corporate transactions in middle America, however when the facts of the case are examined, there appears no justifiable reason to pierce the corporate veil, despite such clandestine and unprofessional behaviours on the part of the defendants. In fact, when taken in its proper context, the whole matter was tantamount to a classic breach of contract and nothing more.

This over complication of the argument does beg the question of whether claimants are all too quick to attack the character of those accused, in order to alleviate doubts as to a right of claim, where proper evaluation of the facts would likely reveal a swift path to justice that allows reduced costs and minimised court time.

In Canada, the controversial Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje has now become the watermark for corporate exposure, coming close to setting a precedent for foreign enquiry into asset liability and covert misdeeds, after the indigenous peoples of Ecuador were subject to extreme pollution through the actions of an overseas corporate subsidiary. While pursuing them through the Canadian courts, and almost becoming a pivotal argument for the extension of ‘piercing’ qualification, it was ultimately overturned in the Superior Court by Justice Hainey, who explained:

“Chevron Canadaʼs shares and assets are not exigible and available for execution and seizure by the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation.”

This overruling stance (amongst other cases) also fell back on the domestic line taken in Adams v Cape Industries Plc, where it had been decided that:

“Our law, for better or worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.”

While this principle already poses great resistance to those seeking damages, the primary reason the courts declined to lift the corporate veil in Chevron, was simply that since the inception of the claim, no suggestions of fraudulent behaviour were levelled toward the defendants, so no matter how aggrieved the claimants felt, it was held inequitable to overstep the boundaries set by the incorporation and limited liabilities enjoyed by many firms, in order to achieve remedy for damages arising from contractual breach on the part of the actual offending party Texaco; who soon after acquiescing to the judgment bought against them in Ecuador, were taken over by Chevron California (the parent company). In fact quite why the claimants were pursuing Chevron Canada is frankly unfathomable given the background to the matter, therefore it comes as no great surprise that the ruling to ‘pierce’ was quickly dismissed.

So to summarise, it would suggest that on the strength of the cases discussed, it is not really an issue of judicial reluctance as much as a failure for the right matter to present itself. It would also pay to exercise caution when supporting foreign claims that display absolutely no logical bearing on (i) how this confused claim should ever have been initiated, and (ii) why any jurisdiction would move to lend credence to such a fruitless endeavour; while from an equitable perspective, the principle of traceability immediately springs to mind when seeking restitution from companies no longer in existence, and whose assets have long since been laundered.