Introduction

[1] On 10 December 2013, this court granted leave to the appellant, the plaintiff in the action, to appeal on the following questions:

a. Where Company A and Company B are family companies belonging to the same family, whether it is permissible for Company A (the 1st respondent/1st defendant) to escape its contractual obligation to sub-contract construction works to the appellant/plaintiff by claiming that Company B (the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant) and not itself was awarded the main sub-contract?

b. Whether the separate legal character of limited companies can be recognised where it is used to avoid or frustrate legal obligations?

c. Whether it is appropriate to lift the corporate veil in a group of family companies and treat them as a single business unit where one company in the group seeks to evade its contractual obligation by relying on the actions of another in the group?

d. Whether it is appropriate to treat the family companies in the group as a single business unit where a dominant individual is its alter ego and is seeking to perform the contract under Company B rather than Company A, thereby denying the appellant/plaintiff its contractual