Tara Cricklewood is a tour operator and a drug dealer. She owns all the shares in a company, Tara Cricklewood Adventure Tours Ltd, and is also the sole director of the company. The company offers adventure tours to tourists and is also used for laundering funds generated by Tara's drug dealing activities. Adventure tours operated by the company are generally led by Tara and she is paid a salary by the company for conducting such tours. She also receives directors' fees from the company. While taking a tour group white-water rafting Tara, by a great physical effort, narrowly avoids a collision with the raft of another company. The abnormal effort causes her to suffer a heart attack (cardio-vascular episode) which confines her to bed for six months. Tara claims compensation as an employee of Tara Cricklewood Adventure Tours Ltd. She relies on accident compensation legislation that provides for compensation in cases of: '... damage to the body caused by cardio-vascular episode, where the episode is the result of effort, strain or stress that is abnormal, excessive or unusual for the person suffering it, and that arises in the course of the employment of the person as an employee' (emphasis added). The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has declined Tara's claim, on the grounds that she is not covered by this legislation. Tara has lodged an appeal with the District Court. Consider the arguments likely to be canvassed by both Tara and the ACC when the appeal is heard by the court. What is the likely outcome? Cite relevant legal authority in support of the arguments and suggested likely outcome.

Confine your answer to company law issues. Include: Taras Arguement: - Seperate Legal Entity Principle - Employment Status (Lee vs Lee)

ACC Arguement: - Lifting Veil (Sham/Facade)