The question of whether the negative aspects of the decision in Salomon's case outweigh the good ones is best left unanswered for it is far too broad. One is inclined towards the view that the principle of separate legal entity established in Salomon's case has been instrumental in the development of modern capitalism and the immense social and economic wealth which it has generated. The House of Lords extended the principle so far as to cover small private enterprises. This move has had several negative consequences over time. However, it is also true that these have been largely neutralised by joint legislative and judicial action.

Indeed, "the legislature can forge a sledgehammer capable of cracking open the corporate shell." And, even without statutory assistance, the courts have often been ready to draw aside the veil and impose legal liability on members and directors where to apply the Salomon principle strictly would lead to injustice, inconvenience or damage to government finances.

Similarly, it should be pointed out that, following Salomon's case, all Australian jurisdictions, in a desire to ameliorate legal facilities for small commercial enterprises,introduced provisions for private companies into their corporate law.Experience since Salomon's case demonstrated that there was no reason why the benefit of limited liability should apply only to groups of business entrepreneurs. The Corporations Act takes this to its logical conclusion and sanctions the registration of one-person companies. In 1995, the First Corporate Law Simplification Act amended the Corporations Act to permit a proprietary company to be set up with one or more shareholders. Under another amendment, the minimum number of directors needed to be designated in a proprietary company was cut from two to one. Moreover, the Corporations Act states that any sort of company, not just a proprietary company, may be established with only one member and may continue to exist with only one member (section 114). It would appear then that the overall balance is positive and that the decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd was a good decision.

Case was decided in favour of Mr.Saloman: When Salomon appeared in the house of lords and it was held that salomon was merely an agent of the company and not the company being salomon's agent and that after incorporation the company becames a separate person set apart from salomon who had created it and that artifical person was absolutely liable for all the his debts and liabilities. So Mr. Salamon has nothing to pay to company Creditors as Mr. Saloman and Company are two seperate legal Entity...Hope Clear..