The Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. case forms a landmark decision in English corporate law and consolidates the principle of separate legal personality. The ruling found that the share-holders had no insurable interest in the assets of the company, regardless of whether they were the sole shareholder. This case-comment critically examines the rationale of the decision from the angle of its effects and implications on corporate law, especially within the contemporary kleptocratic enterprise, where the interests of shareholders and the company assets are usually confused and intertwined. While the ruling reinforced corporate law’s predictability it, nevertheless, illustrates the potential for unfashionable consequences on the closely held companies. An examination of alternate paths, such as the more flexible U.S. doctrine, is theorized to warrant more nuanced applications of the principle of separate legal personality against the modern backdrop of commercial realities. In conclusion, broad, flexible criteria would provide a more sound structure for modern corporate law without compromising its underlying tenets.
