Which one of the following cases supports the proposition that the courts will pierce the corporate veil where it is not

[answerhappygod]

Which one of the following cases supports the proposition that
the courts will pierce the corporate veil where it is not lawful to
form a company to avoid an existing legal obligation or
liability?
Re Darby [1911]
Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation
[1939].
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933].
Briggs v James Hardie [1989].
None of the above.
A company called George Ltd could be which of the following
types of company:
An unlimited company with a share capital.
A no liability company.
A proprietary company.
A public company.
Any of the above statements could apply to George Ltd.