The Concept of the Corporate Veil The "unyielding rock" of company law, as established and invoked in the case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd, is the concept of the separate legal personality of a company . The legal structure of the modern business was born from this centuries-old principle. The foundation of company law is therefore based on the concept that a company has a distinct legal personality, recognized by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ("the Act"). Section 19 of the Act allows a company to act in its own capacity, as distinct from the personal capacity of its directors and shareholders. This principle creates a metaphorical veil that separates and protects the shareholder and the director, as such, from personal responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of the company. A strict application of the principle, however, can sometimes harm the rights of individuals who deal with the company because its controllers use the company structure as a front to perpetrate crimes. Under such circumstances, the court developed the veil-piercing doctrine that effectively reveals the individuals who control the corporation. This has the effect of eliminating the separate existence of the company and of treating the rights, responsibilities or activities of the company as those of its members in their personal capacity. Prior to Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investment (Pty) Ltd, our courts tended to follow the law held by the English courts regarding piercing the corporate veil. They therefore relied on a set of distinct and independent categories of conduct, which guided the courts in deciding whether or not to pierce the veil. Cape Pacific's decision finally set aside South African law... middle of paper... its actions under the "unconscionable abuse" found in Article 20(9). After the ruling, the court relied on the case of VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International in which the UK Supreme Court, refusing to pierce the veil, inferred that the existence of a relevant statutory provision could lead to a different conclusion on the issue whether a court should pierce the veil. the reliance on the UK Supreme Court ruling in the above case appears to create the idea that the enforceability of a headscarf piercing statutory provision may counteract the judge's hesitation to ignore a company's separate legal personality, even in cases of groups of companies.Section 20(9) of the Act provides such statutory provision for lifting the corporate veil. However, it was stated that there are some uncertainties regarding the interpretation and scope of Article 20(9) of the Act.