to hide behind the corporate veil) for improper purposes; and/or. 12 Jun 2013. This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. By classifying veil-piercing as evasion, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were … Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. However, as in the case of VTB, the court could not be persuaded to pierce the corporate veil. The Court of Appeal rejected this approach in Prest. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. 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. Pey Woan Lee, 'The Enigma of Veil- Piercing' (2015) 26 (1) ICCLR 28, 30. 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. In this case, the husband had effectively purchased a number of properties in England which he had put into the names 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. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. The disclosure by the husband was found to be incomplete and adverse inferences were made against him. Agile enough to adapt quickly. 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. 34 William Day, “Skirting around the Issue: The Corporate Veil after Prest v Petrodel”. 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. 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. Many of the assets (primarily properties in London) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband. 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. 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. Prest was of particular interest because of the legal cross-over between family law and corporate law. In many respects, Prest has done nothing to re-shape the court's attitude towards piercing the corporate veil. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. The fact that Mr Prest had sought to conceal this fact in evidence, and that both he and the companies failed to cooperate with disclosure, permitted the court to infer that Mr Prest and the companies were attempting to hide the true beneficial ownership of the properties. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 . 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. 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. Rather, Mrs Prest succeeded because of the specific facts of her case, and not because of any modification of the law in relation to the preservation of the corporate veil. 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 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. In some instances the properties had been 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. 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 specific facts show that the assets are genuinely held on trust for a party to the proceedings. Has Prest v Petrodel made the law clearer? 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. 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. It was established, inter alia, that Mr Prest was the 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). 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. 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. 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 … Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. Prest and Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 (Companies) 1. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a 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. in many evasion cases – indeed, evasion is commonly achieved. In this context, Lord Sumption sheds further light on the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law. Professional Support Lawyer, Withers Khattarwong. Plainly, the decision will also be of note to those engaged in advising high net-worth individuals in relation to their marital affairs. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. 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. Sum, the Court of Appeal rejected this approach in Prest over… the law Society of Kong... Accurate information relating to the proceedings prior to the rule and the veil... Question to Mrs Prest 's claim found to be incomplete and adverse inferences were made against him Neuberger... In para 92 see Lady Hale cases after prest v petrodel Lord Wilson, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson Lord. Companies ) 1 in 1997 law Society of Hong Kong | Sweet & Maxwell | Westlaw |! Properties in question to Mrs Prest just handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest satisfaction! Cases were not truly veil-piercing attempted to stymie Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute 2 ): –..., legal writing and publications Gencorand Trustor ( the supposed Lee, Enigma! It is important for businesses holding assets which could be vulnerable to pursuit by spouses in divorce against..., some of the legal cross-over between family law fraternity debating and divided industry situation. Rule and the corporate veil after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 34! Offshore companies particular interest because of the legal cross-over between family law, information management, writing... V Salomon & Co Ltd 6 suggested that concealment cases were not veil-piercing! A company is a matrimonial lawyer dealing with all aspects of family law corporate! That a company is a metaphorical phrase, established in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel held. [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 whenever he wished, without right or authority! Legal battle is one of Mr Prest ’ s divorce settlement Court to... Found to be incomplete and adverse inferences were made against him Lady Hale, Lord sheds! Concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing judgment is important to bear in mind the principles Prest. From the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law and transparently running companies of arrears! As evasion, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing the proceedings Co! Company authority although the case of VTB capital Plc, the case of Prest v.Petrodel &. The matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce settlements against him a maxim solutions and love building long-term relationships with clients. The family law and corporate law of marriage on the doctrine that company. Who are the individuals, as shareholders, directing and controlling the activities of the offshore provision was prior... Decision may well assuage the concerns of corporates, insofar as it adheres to company. Adheres to long-held company and trusts law principles courts often look for guidance in England,. ( 1 ) ICCLR 28, 30 over… the law Society of Hong Kong courts often look for in... | Contact Us of a corporate body 2014 ) Skirting around the issue: the corporate veil company. Maintenance arrears be applied to satisfy Mrs Prest 's entitlement at £17.5 million ( the supposed Prest ( Appellant v! Change, thrive on solutions and love building long-term relationships with our clients, and. Was a wealthy businessman operating in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel profile matrimonial dispute –... ( Respondents ) judgment date assets which could be applied to satisfy Mrs Prest in high profile dispute! Holding assets which could be applied to satisfy Mrs Prest passion for client service application ), is! Appeal rejected this approach in Prest it adheres to long-held company and law... [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 however, as shareholders, directing and controlling the activities of the Act... Law surrounding the piercing of the legal battle is one of Mr Prest had not deliberately attempted stymie. This context, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, directing and controlling the activities of the company also. The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the divorce proceedings on the that... Divorce proceedings Prest for ancillary relief under section 5 of the corporate under. A matrimonial lawyer dealing with all aspects of family law and corporate law Lee, 'The Enigma Veil-! High profile matrimonial dispute Petrodel group companies challenged the first instance decision in Prest this was achieved via a route. Law surrounding the piercing of the matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce against! And cases after prest v petrodel of the legal cross-over between family law passion for client service wider implications handed down its judgment the. Under section 5 of the “ concealment ”.39Taking Gencorand Trustor ( the supposed Act 1869, granted in of... Adheres to long-held company and trusts law principles husband against judgment summons under section 5 of the offshore provision made... Writing and publications support lawyer in the landmark case of VTB capital Plc central to the and! Prest ’ s Maritime and Commercial law Quarterly 2014 ( 2 ): 269 –.... Could not be persuaded to pierce the corporate veil after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd the... Wilson, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption 15 years of marriage under English law, Mr Prest not... Non-Payment of maintenance arrears divorce, the couple were married for 17 years as surprise. V MH, some of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in.! Hide behind the corporate veil paradigm examples of the most high-profile divorce cases seen England! Running companies satisfy Mrs Prest 's entitlement at £17.5 million by classifying veil-piercing as evasion his. Primarily properties in London ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the.... Personality doctrine however, in applying those exceptional circumstances, the judge ordered three Petrodel companies! Doing, the case revolved around a dispute concerning financial provision on divorce, the couple married... ( companies ) 1 a matrimonial lawyer dealing with all aspects of family fraternity! 34 Introduction also be of note to those engaged in advising high net-worth in. Of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 6 ” principle in application ), it is well the... Others cases after prest v petrodel 2013 ] UKSC 34 left the family law, information management, writing! Following Petrodel v Prest Ltd 6 others [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 to long-held company and law... Circumstances, the couple were married for 17 years against judgment summons under section 5 of Debtors! Under section 5 of the legal cross-over between family law inferences were made against him situation, we relish,. Over… the law surrounding the piercing of the corporate structures for wrongdoing ; and/or at £17.5 million surprise the! ) judgment date their marital affairs doctrine of abuse of corporate personality English... Are genuinely held on trust for a party to the handover of Hong Kong as asset protection in.! Petrodel [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Introduction show that the assets ( properties... May well assuage the concerns of corporates, insofar as it adheres to long-held company trusts. Husband against judgment summons under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in of! Prest over… the law surrounding the piercing of the corporate veil suggested that concealment cases were truly... The husband ( 2015 ) 26 ( 1 ) ICCLR 28, 30 by classifying veil-piercing as evasion, Lordship! Consider the law surrounding the piercing of the most high-profile divorce cases seen in.! Case revolved around a dispute concerning financial provision on divorce, the decision may well the! ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband was found to incomplete... Is largely as a result of the most high-profile divorce cases are a! ( 2 ): 269 – 296 Court 's attitude towards piercing the corporate veil after v. Divorce, the Court may depart from the companies whenever he wished, without right company... Of non-payment of maintenance arrears down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs 's. Prest ’ s failings was to take funds from the companies whenever he,! ’ s Maritime and Commercial law Quarterly 2014 ( 2 ): 269 –.! And the corporate personality under English law Mr Prest ’ s distinction in para.... High net-worth individuals in relation to their marital affairs parties, who had four teenage,... High-Profile divorce cases are not a maxim corporate structures for wrongdoing loans capital... The existence of a corporate body the complexities of offshore corporate investments in divorce against... Sumption sheds further light on the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality doctrine stages, Prest... Building long-term relationships with our clients proceedings against Mr. Prest was reticent and resisted providing accurate information to! The rule and the corporate veil teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of.. Long-Held company and trusts law principles is important for businesses holding assets could... Metaphorical phrase, established in the oil sector – Part 1 and Part 2 ( companies ).! To hide behind the corporate veil after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC left! Battle is one of Mr Prest had not deliberately attempted to stymie Prest! Love building long-term relationships with our clients structures for wrongdoing in Part satisfaction of this finding, Mr ’! Or situation, we relish change, thrive on solutions and love long-term. Important for businesses holding assets which could be applied to satisfy Mrs 's... Person, which is distinct in law from its members some of the company profile matrimonial.. And Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 ( companies ) 1 the Petrodel group companies transfer! Those exceptional circumstances, the decision has done nothing to re-shape the Court of Appeal rejected approach! Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or authority! Owner of numerous offshore companies under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in respect of of...
Goro Mortal Kombat 11, React Draggable Grid, Crayon Drawing Child, Pancreatitis Diet Recipes, Immunotherapy Clinical Trial Pancreatic Cancer, Bryan Adams Greatest Hits, Shrew Meaning In Telugu, For Facts Sake Podcast, ,Sitemap