It is true that Phillimare described C Led as a mere "alias" for D and G, by which they Carried on business. We do not, however, read his judgment as founded on the basis that D and C were to be identified with C as a result of a piercing of C Ltd's veil of incorporation. That is not how he explain his decision, and the passage quoted in the preceding paragraph founds the decision air the basis that they made their ~i•afi4 "eit}ier tlzrectly cr I.hs-oug~~ the age~lcy" of C Ltd. P1~~Ilirnof~e J ~ lso iz~ucle do suggestion tl;at the case E=~~~s one in u~liich rite true facts regair~d D end G €o be reg~ tried as zanies to any canCr~~t in addi~ion to C Ltd.