✔ 最佳答案
According to separate legal entity, the holders of company limited are not liable for the acts and omissions of a company.
However, there is exception, referring to the precedent Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. vs Horne, "piercing the corporate veil" was applied. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction when the company was used to perpetuate fraud and sham arrangement or used as a device or facade to conceal any liability of individual. In the precedent, the respondent escaped liability raised by the restraint of trade clause by exercising the right of company and the court awarded the plaintiff.
In the case, there are statue law prohibiting the business of pirating software. It was impossible that the objects clause of the registration of PK Limited stated it was to sell pirating computer game. In application of registration, PK Limited had to apply exemption or state another objects which were legal. PK Limited would not be prosecuted because the operation and the objects were inconsistant if the registration was after 10-02-1997.
However, when the court lifted the corporate veil, it was very possible that the genuine holders of PK Limited had to be liable for illegal sales. The penality for the illegal sales would be based on the statue law. If John was holder of PK Limited, he would be liable for the penality.
