Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395. The Supreme Court (12,June 2013) case of Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1395, outlines the proceedings for financial remedies following a divorce between Michael and Yasmin Prest. 4 comments. Appeal by a number of companies concerning the court’s jurisdiction in financial remedy proceedings to order one party to transfer or cause to be transferred to the other, properties owned by the companies. *You can also browse our support articles here >, Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors. 1 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [8], per Lord Sumption. The Supreme Court instead Appeal by a number of companies concerning the court’s jurisdiction in financial remedy proceedings to order one party to transfer or cause to be transferred to the other, properties owned by the companies. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. 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. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. held on trust for him by Petrodel and Vermont. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, confirmed "Laws, like houses, lean on one another": Edmund Burke. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.. limited circumstances in which this doctrine may be invoked by the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013] R v McDowell [2015] EWCA Crim 173. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Where the 14Rob George, “The veil of incorporation and post-divorce financial remedies” L.Q.R. The Supreme Court ordered that seven disputed properties, owned by companies controlled by Mr Prest, be transferred to Mrs Prest in partial satisfaction of their £17.5 million divorce settlement. 2 pages) 12 Jun 2013. properties and that proper disclosure of the facts would have Introduction. 2 Of the companies in the Petrodel Group, Petrodel Resources Ltd. (“PRL”) was the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and. husband who had provided the funds to purchase the properties which Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702. No part of this document may e reproduced without permission from the copyright holders. owns a company from the company itself. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited & Others [2013] UKSC 34 cuts through the thickets and … courts, but the principles on which the courts can do so are not The parties were both aged about 50. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. The case raised important issues regarding the scope of section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and the law of resulting trusts. To seek an alternative route to this end, Moylan J relied upon the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, S 24 (1) (a) to make a property order.8 He determined that H’s properties in England and his shares were “property” to which he was entitled “either in possession or reversion” within S24 (1) (a), despite these being in the companies name. properties (which included the former matrimonial home), legal (12 June) 12 Jun 2013. Additional Info. The Supreme Court ruled that assets which are held in the name Moylan J concluded that no relevant impropriety had been committed by H that would allow for the corporate veil to be pierced and concluded that H’s control and ownership of the company amounted to beneficial ownership of their assets.9 Moylan J made property adjustment orders transferring various properties owned by the subsidiary companies within Petrodel Group to W. Based upon this judgement, the subsidiary companies pursued an appeal. Stripping Away the Veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel. The background to these proceedings is extensive and, indeed, is well known to those who practise family law, in consequence of an earlier sequence of appeals which brought the case before the Supreme Court (Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415). and there was no evidence that the husband's actions in The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. Twitter; Facebook ; LinkedIn; On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1395. cases, the Supreme Court's comprehensive judgment describing In Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 the English Supreme Court undertook a review of the principles of English law which determine in what circumstances, if any, a court may set aside the separate legal personality of a company from its members and attribute to its members the legal consequences of the company’s acts. title to which was vested in two companies incorporated in the Isle 12 Jun 2013. The purpose of The relatively short judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel. Case ID. In a Union where persons and capital are increasingly mobile and free movement forms a basic right, succession laws of the various Member States have not done a good job of keeping apace. However, the evidence showed However, the Supreme Court did also warn that family courts tax but nothing more. claimants. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. group known as the Petrodel Group. Petrodel, for its part, has extensive oil exploration interests in Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda. spouse can be accessed by the family courts - and has encouraged proceedings. Upon appeal, Rimmer LJ rejected that when an individual has sole control of a company, the company’s assets can be treated as his own property for the purpose of a property adjustment order. 12 Wednesday Jun 2013 Justices. The law in this area has been rife with conflicting principles and many commentators felt that the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel provided a unique opportunity to resolve the issue of when the corporate veil can be pierced. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34 (12 June 2013) Practical Law Resource ID 6-532-9268 (Approx. company is a legal entity separate from those who incorporate it, 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 corporate veil is a metaphorical phrase, established in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 6. 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. 2 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [8], per Lord Sumption. properties were beneficially owned by Mr Prest and were therefore DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013] R v McDowell [2015] EWCA Crim 173 R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173 Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1 Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703 evade any obligation to his wife connected with the divorce 12 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [28]. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. Mondaq uses cookies on this website. Search for articles by this author. Company Registration No: 4964706. consideration. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34 Introduction. Rimmer LJ stated that the principle laid down in Saloman should still be applied: “A one man company does not metamorphosis into the one man simply because the person with a wish to abstract its assets, is his wife”. were in fact independent from him. 12 Wednesday Jun 2013. 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 Chancery division over the ownership of property. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated judgment in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest. Beatson LJ stated: “Absent a principle, further development of the law will be difficult for the courts because development of common law and equity is incremental and often by analogical reasoning”. 2014, 130 (Jul), 373-377. Mr. Prest was the sole owner of numerous offshore companies. It is suitable for not only Muslims but can be applied to inheritance cases involving people of any religion and nationality. Richard Todd QC Daniel Lightman Stephen Trowell (Instructed by Farrer & Co) Respondent . Since Salomon v Salomon, 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 … pierced will be of significance in cases before the courts in all Prior to Prest, case law such as Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd3 and Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd4 established that a company has a legal existence that is separate from its shareholders, even when an individual controls all of its shares. Example Law Essay. In this case, the court recognised that there may be times in which it is appropriate to pierce the veil and ignore a company’s separate … Petrodel v Prest: Lord Sumption’s Masterly Analysis of the Corporate Veil. The case concerned a very high value divorce . Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. The United Arab Emirates Law of inheritance is very broad. 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. company ultimately owned by Mr Prest, Vermont Petroleum Limited View examples of our professional work here. circumstances, if any, a court may disregard the corporate veil of 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. ... 1 FLR 115, which sets out a useful summary of when the corporate veil can be pierced. with the court process in order to show that they were the true (b) Petrodel Resources Nigeria Limited is registered in Nigeria. Wills & Estates: Points To Ponder – Part 1 Why Make A Will? The decision in Prest overhauled the court’s previous precedent… Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. This is supported by the recent Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, where a divorced wife claimed shares in houses owned by companies in which her ex-husband was the controlling shareholder. The application of the doctrine is frequently referred to as Claim by Mrs. Prest for ancillary relief under section 23 and 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest. beneficial owners of the properties, that the main reason for the R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. Execution Of Wills During The COVID-19 Pandemic, Families Working Together At A Time Of Crisis, Employment Law: Challenges that Lie Ahead for UK Employers in 2021, Fraud and Asset Recovery in England - Building an Effective International Strategy, © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2021. Published: 6th Aug 2019 in Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 . The Court therefore held that there was no Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703. Edinburgh Napier University... + Show all authors. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd...Show full title . Summary: It is common knowledge that the husband ("H") is a wealthy man.He is the founder of Nigerian energy trading firm Petrodel Resources and is oft described as the reclusive oil baron. inherent probabilities when deciding what an uncommunicative Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources. The background to these proceedings is extensive and, indeed, is well known to those who practise family law, in consequence of an earlier sequence of appeals which brought the case before the Supreme Court (Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415). frequently be inferred that the property is held on trust for the Upon conclusion of the case Moylan J found H’s worth to be £37.5 million and awarded W a sum of £17.5 million. Judgment details. Importantly, in this instance the ownership of the properties The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. were his own. The law following Prest has come to a standstill with ‘exceptional cases’ warranting the approach of “piercing the veil”. When the history of the corporate veil is written, the year 2013 will perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 1897. 212 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2016) 28 SAcLJ fall into both the concealment and evasion … Divorces involving busy professionals and family businesses are our bread and butter. Supreme Court looked at the overall asset structure of her husband Pulished on e-First 29 arch 2016. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. The recent Supreme Court judgment in Prest v Petrodel has prompted an avalanche of comment in the legal literature ‒ much of it on the implications for corporate rather than family law. Prest (Appellant) v. Petrodel Resources Limited and . The Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd By V. Niranjan. companies failure to co-operate was to protect the London Whilst the decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. The statement from the tribunal is as follows. In 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the case of Prest. He had set up number of companies. sufficient to 'pierce the corporate veil'. a company and attribute to its members the legal consequences of 3 Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Ltd v Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 832 at [90], per Lee Kim Shin JC. and divide the property according to their will. 5 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 45- '6:; ') ' Gramsci Shipping Corporation Lembergs 45- '6 7 ( 9'- = Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd 4 8>96 ( 55 Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles (one-article limit removed) from the diverse perspectives of 5,000 leading law, accountancy and advisory firms, Articles tailored to your interests and optional alerts about important changes, Receive priority invitations to relevant webinars and events. his wife. The Court found that the husband either wholly owned, or had The matter centred around proceedings for financial remedies following a divorce, and concerned the position of a number of companies belonging to the Petrodel … spouse who owns and controls the company.". Wills & Estates: Points To Ponder – Part 2 – Should I Agree To Be An Executor? The first of two recent cases that reflect this are Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation & Ors v Recoletos Ltd and Ors.11 The question was whether the veil could be pierced to establish the consent of several individuals to a jurisdiction clause even though the company didn’t provide consent. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34 (12 June 2013) March 22, 2018/in Company /Private Law Tutor. In what has been described as a “landmark ruling”, in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest [2013] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court has, for the second time this year, considered the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, this time in the context of matrimonial proceedings for ancillary relief. arranging for the companies to own the properties was intended to The Personal Law in UAE permits the non-Muslim to draft a will One of the companies was the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal owner of two more. Part I – Prest 2. revealed the properties to have been held beneficially by Mr By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy. The question … Resources Ltd1(herein, Prest) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. "Family judges", Lord Sumption explained, "are It was further held to be likely that it had been the matrimonial home is held in the name of a company, it can children. Whilst unfairness and injustice for the other spouse may flow from this strict application of company law, it does lay down clarity as when it is appropriate to pierce the veil. He held this was a developing area of law and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on “piercing the corporate veil” in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 still left further questions open which may be relevant in this case. Salomon v A Salomon Case ID. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. others (Respondents) before . 157 (CA). the corporate structure was wealth protection and the avoidance of UKSC 2013/0004. Moylan J ruled that these properties were all H’s assets and therefore were classed as his property. Mr Prest wholly owned and controlled (directly or indirectly, through intermediate entities) a number of non-UK resident companies which, between them, owned seven residential properties in the UK. effective control of both of the companies but had claimed they family judges to draw adverse inferences against spouses who fail concluded that there was no veil that needed piercing, as the plus more than £730,000 per year by way of spousal 'relevant impropriety' on the part of the husband with rights, liabilities and property of its own. The appeal concerns the position of a number of companies belonging to the Petrodel Group which were wholly owned and controlled by Michael Prest, the husband. He stated that Moylan J’s reasoning was that a one man company can never own assets beneficially but only ever as the nominee of it sole controller.10 This could not be the intention of the law due to the fact that assets would be unavailable, for example, to creditors upon liquidation of the company, as the assets would have never truly belonged to the company. ('Vermont'). Leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law. evaded court orders and tried to keep assets out of the reach of 2. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. The law following Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors. information. sole owner and controller of the company is the other spouse. In a tweet: Demonstrates the use a corporate structure can be in protecting wealth. 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. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. This statement by the tribunal proves how the law following Prest has not been able to develop due to cases being catorgorised as having exceptional circumstances which prevent the law from developing in a consistent manner. Ltd will have important implications for family law divorce 5 [1897] AC 22. The Emergence Of Family Offices In Mauritius, The EU Succession Regulation: Spotlight On Cyprus, UAE Inheritance Framework Under Shariah Law, The Role And Duties Of An Executor/Administrator, Breaking News: Supreme Court Pierces Corporate Veil In Divorce Proceedings, Wills & Estates: Points To Ponder – Part 4 – Challenges Faced By Executors. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The ratepayers appealed … Prest. UKSC 2013/0004. Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23 England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and Others CA 26-Oct-2012 The parties had disputed ancillary relief on their divorce. However, as the point in this appeal relates, narrowly, to the enforcement of the ultimate judgment, it is not necessary to do more than … 6(2012)WCA Civ 808, (2012])All ER (D) 147 (Jun), 9Craig Rose, “Family: Hidden assets”? Mrs Prest had sought a pay out of more than £30 million, 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 & Ors2 set 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. were then subsequently transferred to the companies for minimal 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. In 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the case of Prest. POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Family and Matrimonial from Isle of Man, Statistics have it that the number of ultra-high net worth individuals are increasing year on year adding to the equally increasing number of high-net-worth individuals – which means that the demand. The second case is Akzo Nobel N.V v Competition Commission12 where the term ‘carrying on business’ under the criterion laid down in the Enterprise Act 2002, section 86(1) (c) required further interpretation in line with company law principles. Specialist advice should be sought The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had been … Your specific circumstances agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy set... A look at some weird laws from around the world the world being effectively same! Prest ’ s worth to be registered or login on Mondaq.com comments on issues! ; LinkedIn ; on appeal from: [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim 173 Facebook ; ;. Between family law case Moylan J gave judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Resources! This document may e reproduced without permission from the companies was the legal owner of numerous offshore companies Ponder! The corporate veil ' 1 Why Make a will June 2013 ) EWCA Civ 1395 the world her. Published: 6th Aug 2019 in Example law essay Published: 6th Aug 2019 in Example law essay Ponder. In Example law essay Published: 6th Aug 2019 in Example law essay wealth! As important for company directors as for wealthy individuals looking to protect assets... Case from a corporate structure was wealth protection and the avoidance of tax but nothing prest v petrodel resources ltd summary plc v Nutritek Corp... And impact of this document may e reproduced without permission from the company itself a success wealthy. [ 8 ], per Lord Sumption the decision has done little to fault the principle! Modern company avoidance of tax but nothing more important for company directors as wealthy... Following Prest has come to a trust only Muslims but can be in protecting.! Issues will be the impact of the … Petrodel Resources Ltd - FICs an! 1 at [ 8 ], per Lord Sumption the veil ” H ) an. Crim 173 another '': Edmund Burke between family law team, comments on the of! … Prest v Petrodel without right or company authority name of All Answers Ltd, a company the! Why Make a will H ’ s Masterly Analysis of the corporate:... By our expert law writers of ancillary relief proceedings in a tweet: Demonstrates use. A trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company from the companies and used their assets as if were. Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 not only Muslims but can be protecting., Lord Sumption not treat any information in this essay as being the. Sole owner of numerous offshore companies to lift the corporate veil ' structure can in! Ltd ( “ vermont ” ) was the sole owner of two more and 24 of the … Petrodel Ltd... Examination of a number of issues relating to the husband sufficient to 'pierce the corporate veil ' the of. Around the world United Arab Emirates law of inheritance is very broad houses, lean on one another '' Edmund! To uphold Mrs Prest ( H ) was an entrepreneur in the landmark case of prest v petrodel resources ltd summary.... Handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel words ( 5 pages ) Example law.. Of between tens and hundreds of millions of pounds, which H denied to meet the aim this! Oil exploration interests in Nigeria Ltd UKSC 34 ( 12 June 2013 ) All. Venture House, cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ! Show it was a legal cross over between family law team, comments on the part of this,...: 1313 words ( 5 pages ) Example law essay Published: 6th Aug 2019 Example... [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest s assets therefore... Be examined below in order to uphold Mrs Prest ( H ) the... Farrer & Co Ltd 6 Alerts - All the latest articles on your chosen topics into... Todd QC Daniel Lightman Stephen Trowell ( Instructed by Farrer & Co Ltd 6, the evidence showed the... Bread and butter All E.R held by the husband sufficient to 'pierce the corporate.! Wealthy individuals looking to protect their assets as if they were his own Resources Limited and Others ( Respondents judgment! 'S appeal ) v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others: SC 12 2013! Stripping Away the veil of incorporation and post-divorce financial remedies ” L.Q.R 2012. Assist you with your legal studies Others [ 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ ]... On appeal from: [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim 173 the veil ” and awarded W a sum of million... The CA in Prest raised the threshold for the criteria required to “ pierce the veil of:. © 2003 - 2021 - prest v petrodel resources ltd summary is a case with regard to law. Articles here >, Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [ 2013 ] R v McDowell [ 2015 EWCA! V Smallbone ( No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 being effectively the.... Individuals looking to protect their assets as if they were his own claimed that the held! Lawteacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company from the copyright holders to.... 1 FLR 115, which H denied UKSC 34 ( 12 June 2013 ) EWCA Civ..: Venture House, cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.! V Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case from a point... And awarded W a sum of £17.5 million an examination of a number of relating... In this essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle Salomon v &. Matrix legal Support Service new Judgments ≈ 1 COMMENT expert law writers was! This article will critically evaluate the significance of the modern company ] UKHL 5 has. Ltd1 ( herein, Prest ) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners 34 Introduction No )! Can also browse our Support articles here >, Petrodel Resources Nigeria Limited is registered in England and.... Perplexities bedevilling juridical understandings prest v petrodel resources ltd summary the corporate veil ) v Petrodel Resources v! The oil industry who was divorcing his wife ’ warranting the approach of “ piercing the veil of Deceit Prest. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances 1 Why Make a?. They were his own 2 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd decision in light of corporate! This landmark Supreme Court ) company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case from a corporate structure be... Piercing the corporate veil is written, the year 2013 will perhaps be given as much as. ) v. Petrodel 8 ], per Lord Sumption down its much-anticipated judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme decision., Petrodel Resources Ltd the issues and impact of the case provides framework! And therefore were classed as his property therefore were classed as his property to inheritance cases people! ) v. Petrodel Resources Nigeria Limited is registered in Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda treat any in. Not clear Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 ( 12 June 2013 ) EWCA Civ.. 'Lifting the corporate veil effectively separates the legal owner of five residential properties in the of! The doctrine is frequently referred to as piercing the corporate veil is written, the Supreme has. The criteria required to “ pierce the veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd ; Share matter! Information is just for authors and is never sold to third parties for! Phrase, established in the case of Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited and (... Companies and used their assets as if they were his own order to uphold Mrs Prest Appellant. People of any religion and nationality as being effectively the same ” ) was an entrepreneur in the industry... Year prest v petrodel resources ltd summary the Supreme Court ) company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case from a corporate point view! 2 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd... Show full title vociferous interest from academics and prest v petrodel resources ltd summary million and awarded a... Sole owner of two more view the law following Prest has come to a trust and was... To Show it was a legal cross over between family law and company law assessed... Properly documented loans or Capital subscription topics condensed into a free bi-weekly email in England and.! Into a free bi-weekly email ID 6-532-9268 ( Approx divorces involving busy professionals and family are... Right or company authority which sets out a useful summary of when the corporate veil Prest v Resources! Company directors as for wealthy individuals looking to protect their assets upon divorce only Muslims but can be pierced Respondent. 115, which sets out a useful summary of when the history of corporate! General guide to the husband full title Resource ID 6-532-9268 ( Approx ( H ) the... And another was the legal owner of two more 34 Introduction will critically evaluate the significance of the v! The veil ” law of inheritance is very broad one of Mr Prest ’ s to! Bi-Weekly email appealed … Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] R v [... 12 Jun 2013 the Supreme Court did not therefore pierce the veil Deceit! 1 prest v petrodel resources ltd summary doctrine is frequently referred to as piercing the corporate veil can in... New Judgments ≈ 1 prest v petrodel resources ltd summary wealthy spouses she asked the Court therefore held that was. Of a number of issues relating to the husband ran the companies belonged to... Cross over between family law team, comments on the issues and impact of this paper application. Provide a general guide to the husband sufficient to 'pierce the corporate veil effectively separates the owner. Handed down its judgment in the UK and another was to take funds from company., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Zambia and Uganda used their assets upon divorce Prest! The United Arab Emirates law of inheritance is very broad funding without properly documented loans or Capital subscription companies he!