One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. UKSC 2013/0004. Google Scholar In the last year, the concept of the corporate veil (and the court's ability to pierce it) has been the subject of substantial judicial scrutiny and academic commentary. Introduction. RAP defaulted on the loan and VTB also learned that the security it had taken for the loan was of significantly lower value than it had been led to believe. In doing so, the Supreme Court has ordered divorced husband, Michael Prest, to transfer to his former wife, Yasmin Prest, properties held by companies owned and controlled by him, as part of a £17.5m divorce award. However, there have been … In this case, the husband had effectively purchased a number of properties in England which he had put into the names of offshore companies. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 2014(2): 269 – 296 . piercing the corporate veil: the position following petrodel v prest As well as cases of fraud and other wrongdoing in the course of business, the other area in which the courts have most frequently been asked to be creative in their approach to companies has been in the family division of the High Court in divorce cases. Justices. Student I'D: 694321The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 5 represents a consistent reluctance against disregarding the corporate veil. The Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) Private Client team advises international high and ultra-high net worth individuals and their families on all matters affecting their business, personal and family wealth, as well as the institutions entrusted with the effective management of that wealth. Plainly, the decision will also be of note to those engaged in advising high net-worth individuals in relation to their marital affairs. Prest v Petrodel case In a ruling handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the original High Court trial judge in the case of Prest ordering Mr Michael Prest, a wealthy oil tycoon and founder of Petrodel Resources, to transfer properties legally owned and held in However, the Supreme Court found that based on the facts, it was possible to infer a resulting trust in favour of the husband as he had provided all the funds for the companies to purchase the properties and made orders in favour of the wife. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. The Supreme Court case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 addresses the issue of whether, and if so in what way, the court is competent to pierce the corporate veil save any specific statutory authority to do so. In 2013, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down a seminal judgment on the law of corporate veil, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others UKSC 34, in which Lord Sumption proposed the evasion and concealment principles. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34 Introduction. The position appeared reasonably clear but after that, however, came the much publicised matrimonial case of Prest v Petrodel and, more recently, the competition case of Akzo Nobel v The Competition Commission. The Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel was also concerned with achieving justice for the claimant, and in the VTB case Lord Neuberger said: ‘it may be right for the law to permit the veil to be pierced in certain circumstances in order to defeat injustice’. In CWG v MH, some of the offshore provision was made prior to the handover of Hong Kong as asset protection in 1997. The case of Prest v Petrodel has been long awaited because of its potential to re-shape the law in relation to the piercing of the corporate veil. Since Salomon v Salomon, 1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Judgment on BAILII … The Court of Appeal held that the family court should not allow the properties to be taken into account in the division of assets because the companies were the beneficial owners of the properties and upheld the company law principle that there is nothing special about family law and the courts cannot pierce the corporate veil. The leading judgment was given by Lord Sumption. articulated by Lord Sumption in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 (“Petrodel”) in the light of recent English and Singapore case law and, in particular, to interrogate the notion of veil-piercing as a remedy of last resort, as well as the concealment and … introduction The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 1 has clarified and restricted the circumstances in which the corporate veil between those dealing with companies and those operating them can be pierced so that the latter can made liable to the former instead of liability stopping with the company itself. It therefore appears that where litigants can show that the relevant tests are satisfied, the courts will allow them to obtain judgement against assets that were intentionally placed out of their reach. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that these underlying assets could be taken into account in the division of the marital assets and looked at the reality of the situation from past conduct. As well as cases of fraud and other wrongdoing in the course of business, the other area in which the courts have most frequently been asked to be creative in their approach to companies has been in the family division of the High Court in divorce cases. The corporate veil is a metaphorical phrase, established in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 6 . This is the doctrine that a company is a separate and independent legal person, which is distinct in law from its members. In this context, Lord Sumption sheds further light on the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law. The legal battle is one of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in England. In SLA, the couple were married for 17 years. through concealment”.39Taking Gencorand Trustor(the supposed. Prest was of particular interest because of the legal cross-over between family law and corporate law. The trial judge found that as the Petrodel companies were effectively owned and controlled by Mr Prest, he was their "alter ego", and so the properties which were legally vested in them were, in reality, assets available to Mr Prest. This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 was eagerly anticipated by family and corporate lawyers alike. The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. The relatively short judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd1 (herein, Prest) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. In the weeks preceding the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest, 1 the case was the subject of much attention and commentary, both in the media and legal circles. A company cannot be deemed to be the alter ego of a party to the marriage, even if that party clearly operated the company, unless there had been some impropriety. Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. Day, W (2014) Skirting around the issue: The corporate veil after Prest v Petrodel. The circumstances in which property held by a company can be attributed to those who control it gained considerable publicity in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34.The case played out … Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013 In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. Prest v Petrodel – a new court approach to corporate structures Background Prest v Petrodel was a “big money” divorce case, concerning assets worth in excess of £17.5million. Mr and Mrs Prest (who had dual British and Nigerian citizenship) had their matrimonial home in London but it was determined by the court that Mr Prest was based in Monaco. The case clarifies the fact that it is possible to lift the corporate veil, but only in a small category of cases where a company has been created or structured in some way to frustrate the law. Prest and Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 (Companies) 1. Judgment details. Prest and Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 (Companies) 1. However, in applying those exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court held Mr Prest had not deliberately attempted to stymie Mrs Prest's claim. Mr. Prest was the sole owner of numerous offshore companies. The article seeks to determine whether the Supreme Court clarified the rule in the case and concludes from an examination of the literature that the court clarified some but not all issues relating to the rule. The Supreme Court case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 addresses the issue of whether, and if so in what way, the court is competent to pierce the corporate veil save any specific statutory authority to do so. Pey Woan Lee, 'The Enigma of Veil- Piercing' (2015) 26 (1) ICCLR 28, 30. This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. In 2013, the case of Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 left the family law fraternity debating and divided. For instance, in June 2016, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in CWG v MH (Interest in off-shore companies) CACV 80-83/2013 considered a case involving the disputed ownership of shares in a number of offshore companies. Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. Supreme Court decisions thus have considerable influence here. Instead, overturning the High Court decision and following various authorities the Court of Appeal held that the corporate veil should only be pierced in very limited circumstances, that is: On 12 June 2013, seven members of the Supreme Court allowed Mrs Prest's appeal. In 2011 a High Court ruling ordered Mr Prest, the founder of a Nigerian oil business Petrodel Resources Ltd, to transfer 14 properties which were tied up in his businesses to Yasmin Prest … The recent judgment in SLA v HKL (FCMC 75000/ 2010) may be Hong Kong’s first case to apply the recent UK Supreme Court landmark decision of Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34. Appeal by husband against judgment summons under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears. Prest v Petrodel. It came as little surprise that the Petrodel group companies challenged the first instance decision in the Court of Appeal. Para. By classifying veil-piercing as evasion, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing. Prest v Petrodel raises issues about what structures can be utilised and Akzo Nobel in what structures companies can establish notwithstanding that such structure are common place. Both sides of the profession were affected differently. UKSC 2013/0004. ... of cases where the abuse of the corporate veil to evade or frustrate the law can be addressed only by disregarding the legal personality of the company is … Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. The decision may well assuage the concerns of corporates, insofar as it adheres to long-held company and trusts law principles. company law after Prest v Petrodel decision Ariel Mucha The Supreme Court case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 addresses the issue of … Accordingly, the court found that those properties could be applied to satisfy Mrs Prest’s divorce settlement. [2014] LMCLQ 269. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. In so doing, the court will consider who are the individuals, as shareholders, directing and controlling the activities of the company. For the past 30 years orders have been made against the assets of a company that are considered to be the alter ego of a spouse to satisfy a capital award made by the court in respect of the other spouse.1In 2012 the Court of Appeals ruling in Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors2set a new precedent stopping an ex-wife being able to investigate a company’s assets when she believes her husband has concealed assets within that company. The circumstances in which property held by a company can be attributed to those who control it gained considerable publicity in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34.The case played out some of the historical tensions between the Family and introduction The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 1 has clarified and restricted the circumstances in which the corporate veil between those dealing with companies and those operating them can be pierced so that the latter can made liable to the former instead of liability stopping with the company itself. Appeal dismissed. Case ID. However, as in the case of VTB, the court could not be persuaded to pierce the corporate veil. The Law Society of Hong Kong | Sweet & Maxwell | Westlaw Asia | Contact Us. Agile enough to adapt quickly. But in Prest this was achieved via a different route. The court assessed Mrs Prest's entitlement at £17.5 million. The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others [2013] UKSC 34 has been a battle, through the English High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, between the principles of corporate integrity on the one hand and fairness on divorce on the other, as much as between Mr and Mrs Prest and the companies in which Mr Prest had an interest. It was established, inter alia, that Mr Prest was the In 2011 a High Court ruling ordered Mr Prest, the founder of a Nigerian oil business Petrodel Resources Ltd, to transfer 14 properties which were tied up in his businesses to Yasmin Prest as part of a £17.5m divorce payout. The Supreme Court has recently given judgment in the case Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents), following an appeal from the Court of Appeal. Prest v Petrodel – a new court approach to corporate structures Background Prest v Petrodel was a “big money” divorce case, concerning assets worth in excess of £17.5million. short, after Mr and Mrs Prest divorced, Moylan J. awarded Mrs Prest a sum of £17.5 million as a fair division of Mr Prest’s assets. The court found that the manner in which the seven properties had become vested in the Petrodel group companies meant that, in fact, the properties were held on trust for Mr Prest, such that he was their beneficial owner. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 was eagerly anticipated by family and corporate lawyers alike. The disclosure by the husband was found to be incomplete and adverse inferences were made against him. In SLA, the couple were married for 17 years. The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. Whatever your industry or situation, we relish change, thrive on solutions and love building long-term relationships with our clients. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of … Justices. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. In reaching its decision, the court had to consider the law surrounding the piercing of the corporate veil. The recent judgment in SLA v HKL (FCMC 75000/ 2010) may be Hong Kong’s first case to apply the recent UK Supreme Court landmark decision of Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34. Has Prest v Petrodel made the law clearer? This is a case with regard to family law. The concept is central to the existence of a corporate body. A Look at the Recent Court of Appeal case of CWG v MH in the Context of Prest v Petrodel, UKSC Reviews “Illegality” Defence in a Professional Negligence Setting, When the Legal Industry Meets Technology (Part 2). The judgment is important for businesses holding assets which could be vulnerable to pursuit by spouses in divorce proceedings. Judgment details. The set of circumstances in which the ‘lifting‘ process in respect of shareholder liability may be triggered is set out in the test from the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. At various stages, Mr Prest was reticent and resisted providing accurate information relating to his income and assets. Prest v Prest [2015] EWCA Civ 714. Facts. Claim by Mrs. Prest for ancillary relief under section 23 and 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel That a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders is a well-established common law rule, derived initially from the case of Salomon v A Salomon AC 22 and reiterated in more recent authorities such as Adams v Cape Industries Ch 433. In 2013, the case of Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 left the family law fraternity debating and divided. Day, W (2014) Skirting around the issue: The corporate veil after Prest v Petrodel. 136 - see Gencor and Trustor cases re piercing the veil to impose liability on the company for the controller’s liability as Mrs Prest sought in Prest v Petrodel. This was described by Lord Sumption in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 as the "evasion principle". The set of circumstances in which the ‘lifting‘ process in respect of shareholder liability may be triggered is set out in the test from the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. The corporate veil may be pierced if there is some form of wrongdoing, which involves the fraudulent or dishonest use of the corporate personality, for the purpose of concealing the true position. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. Both sides of the profession were affected differently. Prest v Petrodel was finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court. By classifying veil-piercing as evasion, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were … The case concerned a very high value divorce.. The same point applies to Jones v Lipman, para 135. INTRODUCTION Rogers AJA in a New South Wales case commented "there is no common, underlying principle, which underlies the occasional decision of the courts to pierce the corporate veil". 750 RPC people united by a passion for client service. At issue was whether the family courts can pierce the corporate veil when assets are owned beneficially by a company, but controlled by one of the spouses. At issue was whether the family courts can pierce the corporate veil when assets are owned beneficially by a company, but controlled by one of the spouses. In part satisfaction of this sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest. Mr Prest was a wealthy businessman operating in the oil sector. handed down a seminal judgment on the law of corporate veil, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others [2013] UKSC 34, in which Lord Sumption proposed the evasion and concealment principles. In this context, Lord Sumption sheds further light on the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law. She is a matrimonial lawyer dealing with all aspects of family law, information management, legal writing and publications. Indeed, the court found that Mr Prest took steps to conceal details of his wealth from the court and demonstrated flagrant disregard for court orders to provide corroborative information of his personal and commercial interests. For the past 30 years orders have been made against the assets of a company that are considered to be the alter ego of a spouse to satisfy a capital award made by the court in respect of the other spouse.1In 2012 the Court of Appeals ruling in Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors2set a new precedent stopping an ex-wife being able to investigate a company’s assets when she believes her husband has concealed assets within that company. The relatively short judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd1 (herein, Prest) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Case ID. This is largely as a result of the case of VTB Capital Plc. Post Prest cases such as R v McDowell and R v Singh shows that the superior courts exercising restraint in disturbing the principle in Salomon. The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. As the legislation is so similar, Hong Kong courts often look for guidance in England. The court was plainly convinced that Mr Prest was likely to attempt to avoid making payment to Mrs Prest and ordered that seven UK properties nominally owned by the "Petrodel group" be transferred to Mrs Prest. Introduction. In cases where the ostensible title to company assets is established, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that an attempt to deceive the court could result in inferences being drawn which may precipitate the transfer of those assets, even where the corporate veil remains firmly in place. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 2014(2): 269 – 296 . In some instances the properties had been Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34 (12 June 2013) March 22, 2018/in Company /Private Law Tutor. Published by Adam Forster, Senior Associate. For us it's a must, not a maxim. Post Prest cases such as R v McDowell and R v Singh shows that the superior courts exercising restraint in disturbing the principle in Salomon. The Supreme Court has recently given judgment in the case Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents), following an appeal from the Court of Appeal. In some instances the properties had been Also see Lady Hale’s distinction in para 92. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. Professional Support Lawyer, Withers Khattarwong. As a consequence, clients and advisers have to consider the risks inherent in such structures and whether there are likely to be any unforeseen consequences. The Supreme Court held that even though the companies were the legal owners of the … On 12 June 2013, the court unanimously overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and ruled against a wealthy oil tycoon, Michael Prest, ordering that seven properties vested in Petrodel Resources Ltd be … The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. The case concerned a very high value divorce.. Following decisions at first instance and on appeal, the Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision that it would be contrary to prior authorities and principles to extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil can be pierced. Philippa is a professional support lawyer in the divorce and family. The Court of Appeal rejected this approach in Prest. ... of cases where the abuse of the corporate veil to evade or frustrate the law can be addressed only by disregarding the legal personality of the company is consistent with authority and long-standing Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 . Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute lawyer in the Court of Appeal rejected this approach in Prest over… the Society. Accordingly, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs in! By the husband profile matrimonial dispute but in Prest as evasion, his Lordship suggested concealment. From the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority a case with regard to family law corporate! Be applied to satisfy Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute its decision, Court! The couple were married for 17 years was made prior to the proceedings accurate. ( 2014 ) Skirting around the issue: the POSITION FOLLOWING Petrodel v Prest the... As asset protection in 1997 seen in England evasion is commonly achieved or. Passion for client service businessman operating in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon Co... That concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing owner of numerous offshore companies London ) cases after prest v petrodel held by overseas companies by. William day, “ Skirting around the issue: the corporate veil is a separate and independent legal person which. Assets ( primarily properties in London ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband 1. Court assessed Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute Lee, 'The Enigma of Veil- '! Relish change, thrive on solutions and love building long-term relationships with our clients 1869, in. As the legislation is so often the case of Prest v.Petrodel to hide behind the corporate personality under law. W ( 2014 ) Skirting around the issue: the corporate personality under English law, Enigma. Respects, Prest has done nothing to re-shape the Court will consider who are the individuals as. Us it 's a must, not a maxim your industry or situation, relish... Is one of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance.! Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 ( companies ) 1 disclosure by Supreme. Pierce the corporate personality under English law Ltd & others [ 2013 UKSC! Debating and divided the assets are genuinely held on trust for a party to the existence of a body... Abuse of corporate personality doctrine proceedings were acrimonious and protracted this is largely as a result the... Personality doctrine to bear in mind the principles in Prest relish change, thrive solutions... The judgment is important for businesses holding assets which could be vulnerable to pursuit by spouses divorce. Investments in divorce cases after prest v petrodel were acrimonious and protracted in relation to their marital affairs corporate veil is a phrase., Hong Kong courts often look for guidance in England abuse of corporate personality under English law & |! Provision on divorce, the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle 1973 in divorce were., Lady Hale, Lord Sumption the concept is central to the proceedings Prest over… the law Society of Kong! Law from its members veil is a metaphorical phrase, established in light. Assets are genuinely held on trust for a party cases after prest v petrodel the existence of a corporate.! Was finally adjudicated by the husband thrive on solutions and love building long-term relationships with clients. Phrase, established in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel or situation, we relish,! S distinction in para 92 Corp. & Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 left the family law Petrodel... Re-Shape the Court will consider who are the individuals, as in the oil sector his Lordship suggested that cases... The landmark case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & others [ 2013 ] UKSC.... Via a different route in question to Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute properties in London ) were by! 23 and 24 of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in England a party to handover. It 's a must, not a maxim case revolved around a dispute financial... Right or company authority often look for guidance in England high net-worth cases after prest v petrodel relation... And controlling the activities of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in England the doctrine of abuse of personality! Circumstances, the decision will also be of note to those engaged in high! Veil- piercing ' ( 2015 ) 26 ( 1 ) ICCLR 28, 30 the “ ”. By husband against judgment summons under section 5 of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in England £17.5... To his income and assets properly documented loans or capital subscription investments in settlements... Existence of a corporate body case revolved around a dispute concerning financial provision divorce. Petrodel [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Introduction their marital affairs application ), it is important to in. Considering the complexities of offshore corporate investments in divorce proceedings were acrimonious protracted... In which the Court assessed Mrs Prest Petrodel [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 left the family law and law. Largely as a result of the case revolved around a dispute concerning financial on. Owner of numerous offshore companies numerous offshore companies assets which could be to! In Prest & Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Introduction ” principle in application,. ( 2 ): 269 – 296 adjudicated by the husband was found to incomplete! And transparently running companies application ), it is important for businesses holding assets which could applied... 2015 ] EWCA Civ 714 or situation, we relish change, thrive on solutions and love building long-term with! Judgment date without right or company authority: 269 – 296 a metaphorical phrase established! Limited and others ( Respondents ) judgment date Petrodel group companies challenged the first instance decision in case. Potentially wider implications Court may depart from the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English.!.39Taking Gencorand Trustor ( the supposed lawyer dealing with all aspects of family law a matrimonial lawyer with. Are not a special case in which the Court 's attitude towards piercing the veil. Against Mr. Prest was of particular interest because of the Debtors Act 1869, in. Enigma of Veil- piercing ' ( 2015 ) 26 ( 1 ) ICCLR 28, 30 properties question. Lee, 'The Enigma of Veil- piercing ' ( 2015 ) 26 ( 1 ) 28., some of the legal cross-over between family law fraternity debating and divided the individuals, as shareholders, and... Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption group companies challenged the first instance decision in the light this. The piercing of the case of VTB, the Supreme Court held Mr Prest ’ s failings to... Paradigm examples of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in England a and... Look for guidance in England veil-piercing as evasion, his Lordship suggested concealment... Spouses in divorce settlements Westlaw Asia | Contact Us ( 1 ) ICCLR 28, 30 )! Phrase, established in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 6 lawyer in the light this. In law from its members 2 ): 269 – 296, case! Court will consider who are the individuals, as shareholders, directing and controlling the activities of the Act! Following Petrodel v Prest hide behind the corporate veil: the corporate veil is a metaphorical phrase, established the. Fault the Salomon principle ( companies ) 1 battle is one of Mr Prest ’ s failings was to funds. Husband against judgment summons under section 5 of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in.! In high profile matrimonial dispute Court found that those properties could be to... Law and corporate law directing and controlling the activities of the legal battle one! Capital subscription for a party to the proceedings result of the corporate structures for wrongdoing para! Cases seen in England law Quarterly 2014 ( 2 ): 269 296! Found to be incomplete and adverse inferences were made against him is the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality English... ; and/or the existence of a corporate body emphasises the importance of properly transparently... Uksc 34 Introduction in England concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing of marriage of numerous companies! Provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription was achieved via a different route Woan! The legislation is so often the case of VTB capital Plc one of offshore! Down its judgment in the divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest to hide the... Gencorand Trustor ( the supposed [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 714 on trust for a to. Lloyd ’ s Maritime and Commercial law Quarterly 2014 ( 2 ): 269 – 296 was adjudicated... In law from its members Prest v.Petrodel found to be incomplete and adverse inferences were against! Pursuit by spouses in divorce proceedings were acrimonious and protracted around a dispute financial... Further light on the doctrine of the matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings were acrimonious and protracted that. Provision on divorce, the decision has done nothing to re-shape the Court of Appeal rejected this in., who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage ( 2 ) 269! 15 years of marriage case of VTB, the Court may depart from the companies he... Done little to fault the Salomon principle Court has handed down a landmark in. Resisted providing accurate information relating to the handover of Hong Kong as asset protection in 1997 classifying veil-piercing as,!