THE APPLICATION OF THE PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL DOCTRINE TO CORPORATE BREACH OF CONTRACT DISPUTES THROUGH THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE: English

Prajna Enggar Prakoso; Adi Sulistiyono; Hari Purwadi

doi:10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i3.9507

Authors

Prajna Enggar Prakoso Sebelas Maret University
Adi Sulistiyono Universitas Sebelas Maret
Hari Purwadi Universitas Sebelas Maret

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i3.9507

Keywords:

law, Limited Liability Company

Abstract

A Limited Liability Company (Perseroan Terbatas) is a legal entity with a legal personality separate from its shareholders and corporate organs; therefore, it is generally governed by the principle of limited liability. However, under certain circumstances, this principle may be set aside through the piercing the corporate veil doctrine when the corporate entity is used to evade legal obligations or to commit abuses that cause harm to other parties. This study aims to analyze the application of the piercing the corporate veil doctrine in corporate breach of contract disputes through the alter ego doctrine, as well as to examine the construction of personal liability and the juridical parameters for imposing joint and several liability on corporate organs. This research employs a prescriptive doctrinal legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The case approach examines Indonesian court decisions, namely Decision Number 96/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Jkt.Sel. and Decision Number 47/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Mtr. Legal materials were collected through library and document research, encompassing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources, and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that The alter ego doctrine may serve as an indicator in identifying the control and relationship between corporate organs and the company in determining personal liability. However, control over a company alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for applying the piercing the corporate veil doctrine.

References

Abdallah, R., Maulida, H., Ramadhani, I., Suryanti, N., Yuanitasari, D., & Asmara, T. T. P. (2023). Doktrin piercing the corporate veil pada pertanggungjawaban pemegang saham. Widya Sari, 25(2), 19.

Clark, R. C. (1986). Corporate Law. United Kingdom : Little, Brown and Company.

Dalimunthe, D. (2017). Akibat hukum wanprestasi dalam perspektif Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (BW). Jurnal Al-Maqasid, 3(1), 21.

Fuady, M. (2007). Piercing the corporate veil dalam perspektif hukum perusahaan Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 26, 25.

Fuady, M. (2014). Hukum Perseroan Terbatas. Bandung : PT Citra Aditya Bakti.

Harahap, M. Y. (2016). Hukum Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta : Sinar Grafika.

Khairandy, R. (2008). Doktrin separate legal entity dalam hukum perseroan. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 15(2), 15.

Khairandy, R. (2009). Asas pacta sunt servanda dan implikasinya dalam hukum perjanjian. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 16(3), 81.

Nurpatria, I. S., dkk. (2016). Wanprestasi vs. perbuatan melanggar hukum menurut Burgerlijk Wetboek. Jurnal Media Bisnis, 8(1), 4.

Priyono, E. A. (2016). Penerapan doktrin piercing the corporate veil dalam pertanggungjawaban direksi. Jurnal Yustisia, 5(1), 11.

Ramadhani, & Aryanti, D. (2012). Wanprestasi dan akibat hukumnya. Perpustakaan UPN “Veteran” Jakarta, 15(17), 134.

Rissy, Y. Y. W. (2019). Doktrin piercing the corporate veil: Ketentuan dan penerapannya di Inggris, Australia, dan Indonesia. Refleksi Hukum, 7.

Sjahdeini, S. R. (2007). Tanggung jawab terbatas dalam perseroan terbatas. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 26, 7.

Strik, D. (2025). Piercing the corporate veil in public interest matters. European Company and Financial Law Review, 1, 26.

Subekti, R. (1984). Wanprestasi dalam perspektif hukum perdata. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 14(2), 26.

Sugandi, D. (2024). Perbandingan doktrin the piercing of corporate veil di berbagai negara (Indonesia, Perancis, dan Jerman). UNES Journal of Swara Justisia, 12–13.

Suharnoko. (2004). Hukum Perjanjian: Teori dan Analisa Kasus. Jakarta : Kencana.

Widjaja, G. (2008). Risiko Hukum Pemilik, Direksi & Komisaris PT: Piercing the Corporate Veil: Memberlakukan Tanggung Jawab Pribadi Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta : Niaga Swadaya.

Yolanda, F. S. (2021). Gugatan wanprestasi dan perbuatan melawan hukum dalam satu surat gugat (Studi kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3057 K/Pdt/2001 dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1330 K/Pdt/2017). Jurnal Verstek, 9(1), 222.