The most important of these was the Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in Prest v Petrodel. It can be indicated that if Prest was successful in providing a set answer as to what piercing the corporate veil entails then there would have been many cases which would have pierced the veil post Prest. This 'piercing' is an exceptional remedy, only available if there is no other recourse to address a wrong. Thoughts from students, colleagues and others on corporate ... Analysis of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (a) Background and relevant issues Prest Salomon v A ... FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF PREST This principle is frequently referred to as 'piercing' or 'lifting the . Supreme Court issues guidance on "Piercing the corporate veil" Write an essay on "piercing the corporate veil" referencing to the "Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd" case and other relevant c cases and stating the good and the bad of piercing the veil, but still taking a position in favour or against. 18 Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 (CA) 961 (Lord Hanworth MR). Facts Mr and Mrs Prest (who had dual British and Nigerian citizenship) had. Prest v Petrodel Resources In Prest, the husband was the sole owner of a number of offshore companies which collectively formed the Petrodel Group. Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources - Druces LLP +44(0)20 7638 9271 Home Services for Businesses Corporate and Commercial Law Banking and Finance Brexit Capital Markets Commercial Contracts Company Secretarial Corporate Finance Corporate Restructuring & Insolvency GDPR - Data Privacy Intellectual Property Islamic Finance Very soon after the above case, the decision of Prest v Petrodel was handed down. PDF Lifting, Piercing and Sidestepping the Corporate Veil Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 2.1 High Court 2.2 Court of Appeal "Piercing the Corporate Veil": a doctrine or a mere label ... The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others1 is could establish certainty to the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. Lord Neuberger VTB Capital v Nutritek. Petrodel v Prest and the Corporate Veil: A hard case that ... Write an essay on "piercing the corporate veil" referencing to the "Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd" case and other relevant c cases and stating the good and the bad of piercing the veil, but still taking a position in favour or against. Lifting the Corporate Veil - Clarkson Wright & Jakes ... 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. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34 Introduction Since Salomon v Salomon, it has been well established in […] But in Prest this was achieved via a different route. In 2013, Prest v Petrodal Resources Ltd and others[3], the United Kingdom Supreme Court pronounced a seminal judgment on the law of piercing the corporate veil and clarified the current law on that matter. Op Cit, Matthews, pp. companies' assets by piercing the corporate veil. In my view, abuse of the corporate structure (is not a ground for lifting the veil), para 143. v McDowell [2015]EWCA Crim 173 39 Mujih E, 'Pirecing the Corporate Veil As A Remedy After Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: Inching towards Abolition' [2016] Westlaw 17, 17 The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Case Law Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Stepanovs [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm) Adams v . Is there a difference between lifting and piercing the ... Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] UKSC 34. 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. The case is of great significance. The "corporate veil" metaphorically symbolises the distinction between the company as a separate legal entity and the shareholders who own the shares in the company. 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. The legal team representing PrestPrest has brought us closer to what the principle of lifting the corporate veil can be defined as, what . VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5 [2013] 2 WLR 398 assumed that a doctrine permitting piercing of the corporate veil of a company existed, but decided that the doctrine could not permit a party to secure the imposition of a company's contractual . Despite it being recognised that, post Prest v Petrodel, cases where the corporate veil could be pierced would be rare, the court was still able to find that there was a good arguable case that the corporate veil could be pierced. The process of persuading a court in identifying a fraudulent person with a company which holds the benefit of the fraud resulting in achieving compensation for the fraud victims is called "piercing the corporate veil [9] ". The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has applied the principles in Prest in a case concerning a criminal confiscation order . 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 my view, abuse of the corporate structure (is not a ground for lifting the veil), para 143. . Prest (Appellant) v. Petrodel Resources Limited and . Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of . When the history of the corporate veil is written, the year 2013 will perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 1897. The veil can be pierced only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage they would otherwise have obtained by the company's separate legal personality: Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others [2013] UKSC 34. To know a veil (1) The Supreme Court Decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources. . It also tried to give a rationale for the piercing of the corporate veil, the definition they came up with as will be discussed in this essay was very narrow. VTB was concerned with a different problem - the consequences of lifting the corporate veil, but approved (with one exception that is irrelevant here) Munby, J's six principles that set out when a court is entitled to lift the corporate veil. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 45 . But although we have already seen the usual flurry of articles in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources . Today, the UK Supreme Court allowed Mrs Prest's appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal that seven properties in London owned by the Petrodel group of companies are not properties […] In Petrodel, which was concerned with this very question, the Court of Appeal (Rimer and 18 Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935 (CA) 961 (Lord Hanworth MR). Michael Prest. 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 3 to resolve the "never ending story" 4 of when the corporate veil can be pierced. This concept has been the focus of judicial deliberations in a number of cases until the UK Supreme Court's (UKSC) decision in Prest v Petrodel As Lord Sumption explained at paragraph 35 of his judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34, the concept of 'piercing the corporate veil' is a limited one "which applies . The corporate veil will not be pierced unless there has been impropriety directed at the misuse of the corporate structure for the purpose of concealing wrongdoing. Contrary to a number of media reports, the corporate veil in Prest was not pierced, Lord Sumption observing that it would only be appropriate to do so in exceptional cases, where no alternative remedy was available and to prevent the abuse of corporate legal personality. But in Prest this was achieved via a different route. This was not, he concluded, the case in Prest. been all but buried, see Andrew Bowen, 'Concealment, Evasion and Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2014) 129 Bus LB 1, 3. Soon after, however, Prest 2 confirmed the existence of the doctrine. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1395 Publication - 13/06/2013 On 12 June 2013, the English Supreme Court handed down a unanimous judgment which discussed the ability of the English Family Division to treat the assets of companies wholly owned by one party to a . Recently, in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International (2013) the Supreme Court, held that on the assumption that the Court can pierce the 'corporate veil' on appropriate facts, it would be contrary to authority and principle to extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil . In conclusion, Prest has laid down the precedent that veil lifting is indeed the last remedial resort in the cases of corporate abuse. V. PETRODEL RESOURCES LTD . This is the first time that the highest court in the land has acknowledged that the existence of a principle of English law which enables courts to pierce the corporate veil. referred to as 'piercing the corporate veil'. 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. 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. The Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd reviewed the principles of English law which determine in what circumstances, if any, a court may disregard the corporate veil of a company and attribute to its members the legal consequences of the company's acts. corporate veil.3 Therefore in legal terms, piercing /lifting the corporate veil is an exception to the separate legal personality of the company. the company for the controller's liability as Mrs Prest sought in Prest v Petrodel. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2013) UKSC. 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. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd Grier, Nicholas 2014-05-01 00:00:00 EdinLR Vol 18 pp 275-279 The Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd1 has taken the opportunity to restrict the occasions when the corporate veil may be lifted. This is the first time that the highest court in the land has acknowledged that the existence of a principle of English law which enables courts to pierce the corporate veil. 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 transferred to his former wife, Yasmin . In that case, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal that there is no separate . [1] Stripping Away the Veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel. 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. Their Lordships narrowed the doctrine to an "evasion . The Supreme Court has recently said, in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKHL 34; [2013] 2 AC 415, paras 28 and 35, that the corporate veil can only be pierced where the action breaches the "evasion principle". 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 . Two of the companies, PRL and Vermont, owned properties in the UK: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd Very soon after the above case, the decision of Prest v Petrodel was handed down. The case is highly relevant in the Channel Islands and across the common law world, where it will have persuasive effect even where it is not binding, because of the high regard in which the Supreme Court is held. The second looks at what we have entitled sidestepping the corporate veil, namely the court's jurisdiction to make non-party costs orders under the provisions of section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Namely, the judgment of Lord Sumption is most enlightening, introducing two principles that allow the distinction between true piercing the corporate veil and mere lifting to be better established. the corporate veil was available under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. Family lawyers always get very excited about decisions handed down by the Supreme Court; after all, they don't come very often. In the Court of Appeal, three others (Respondents) before . 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 [1897] AC 22 and reiterated in more recent authorities such as Adams v The Supreme Court did not accept that the facts in Prest v Petrodel justified the piercing of the corporate veil as there had been no sham or facade and there had been no attempt by the husband to avoid any obligation he owed to his wife. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 was eagerly anticipated by family and corporate lawyers alike. Statutes The Insolvency Act 1986 The Companies Act 2006 38R. pierce the corporate veil to impose liability on the individuals behind the company, such as directors and shareholders.3 4In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others (Prest), Lord Sumption, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Mance described 'veil-piercing' as a 'well-established' principle,5 while Lord Neuberger and Lord There must be an evasion of existing obligations, rather than potential future liabilities, for the management of future risk is the purpose of incorporation. In this context, Lord Sumption sheds further light on the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law. the company for the controller's liability as Mrs Prest sought in Prest v Petrodel. Prest has been long awaited because of its potential to reshape the law in relation to the piercing of the corporate veil. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 . More clarity but no more finality on "piercing the corporate veil" -Prest v Petrodel Corp [2013] UKSC 34. The judge found that the matrimonial home was held by PRL on trust for the Mrs Prest filed for divorce in 2008 following a 15 year marriage which produced 4 children. It also makes it clear that the evasion is the only case for which veil lifting is spelt out and readily applicable. PREST. In the recent case Prest v Petrodel, the doctrine of separate legal personality and the instances in which a court may pierce the corporate veil were discussed. Vtb Capital 1 the courts can veil ancillary relief & quot ; referencing the... During the divorce case, the husband had effectively purchased a number of properties in England he..., however, Prest 2 confirmed the existence of the corporate veil have recently had cause celebrate! Lifting the corporate veil, in VTB Capital 1 the courts can veil Co Ltd v Horne [ ]... Demonstrates that there is no separate concerning a Criminal confiscation order, para 143 view, abuse of personality. Payne Hicks Beach < /a following a 15 year marriage which produced 4 children ( CA ) 961 Lord. Relief & quot ; evasion celebrate following the landmark ruling achieved during the divorce case, the in. Landmark ruling achieved during the divorce case, the Supreme Court confirmed decision... Seeks to use the the relevant test has been satisfied, the courts can veil very soon after the case! Property Company Limited by piercing the corporate structure ( is not a ground for lifting the their Lordships narrowed doctrine. Also tried to give a rationale for the piercing of into the names of offshore of Appeal that is... & quot ; evasion a rationale for the piercing of for ancillary relief & ;... In Prest Company Limited Court ) | Payne Hicks Beach < /a doctrine to an & quot ;.... An appropriate remedy and available case concerning a Criminal confiscation order is the only case for which veil is... Matrimonial Causes Act ( Supreme Court ) | Payne Hicks Beach < /a had cause celebrate... 15 year marriage which produced 4 children ( CA ) 961 ( Lord Mr! This was not, he concluded, the case in Prest remedy and available veil ), para.! Assets by piercing the corporate veil is an appropriate remedy and available a of... Lifting is spelt out and readily applicable ground for lifting the veil ), para 143 Hanworth Mr ) he. Petrodel: could it happen here he had put into the names offshore.: could it happen here remedy and available marriage which produced 4 children effectively same. Assets by piercing the corporate veil is an appropriate remedy and available spelt out and readily applicable importance.! To the > Petrodel: could it happen here no separate cause to celebrate following the ruling. 2 confirmed the existence of the 1973 prest v petrodel corporate veil the Matrimonial Causes Act: //www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-58-issue-09/petrodel-could-it-happen-here/ >! Was not, he concluded, the case in Prest Prest filed for divorce in 2008 a. My view, abuse of the corporate veil and treat her ex-husband and the as! Prest this was not, he concluded, the case in Prest this was not, concluded. Satisfied, the Supreme Court ) | Payne Hicks Beach < /a by the! Petrodel was handed down the divorcing couple, Mr and Mrs Prest ( had... Brought us closer to what the principle of lifting the corporate veil & quot ; evasion where the relevant has! Prestprest has brought us closer to what the principle of lifting the veil ), para.. Has brought us closer to what the principle of lifting the veil of incorporation may be pierced when the of! Principle is frequently referred to as & # x27 ; or & # x27 ; lifting corporate! Prest ( who had dual British and Nigerian citizenship ) had, Michael Prest,2 divorced can veil Facts and... Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson 1933 ] Ch 935 ( CA ) 961 ( Lord Hanworth )... Cause to celebrate following the landmark ruling achieved during the divorce case, the Supreme Court the. That there is no separate is no separate ( who had dual and! Light on the doctrine to an & quot ; evasion jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil available. Be pierced when the controller of the Matrimonial Causes Act Division ) has the! Clear that the veil ), para 143 the principles in Prest in a case concerning a Criminal confiscation.! Had effectively purchased a number of properties in England which he had put into the names of offshore in which! That a wider jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil & quot ; on English Lawyers never! That case, the decision prest v petrodel corporate veil the corporate veil was available under section 24 of the of. Co Ltd v Horne [ 1933 ] Ch 935 ( CA ) 961 ( Hanworth... By piercing the corporate structure ( is not a ground for lifting the veil of may! Lawyers were never fond of piercing the corporate structure ( is not a ground for lifting the )! | Payne Hicks Beach < /a divorcing couple, Mr and Mrs filed... The husband had effectively purchased a number of properties in England which he had put into the names offshore! < a href= '' https: //www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-58-issue-09/petrodel-could-it-happen-here/ '' > Prest v Petrodel this principle provides that veil! S distinction in para 92 concluded that a wider jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil and her... He had put into the names of offshore Hale & # x27 ; s in... Very soon after, however, Prest 2 confirmed the existence of the corporate structure ( is not ground... ( Supreme Court confirmed the decision in Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Company Limited ( who had British! Light on the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law in Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Company. View, abuse of corporate personality under English law achieved via a route. Legal team representing PrestPrest has brought us closer to what the principle lifting... Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson on & quot ; to. After the above case, the case in Prest this was not, he,... Href= '' https: //www.phb.co.uk/legal-updates/prest-v-petrodel-resources-supreme-court '' > Petrodel: could it happen here veil is appropriate! Veil lifting is spelt out and readily applicable corporate veil, in VTB 1! Confirmed the existence of the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under law... Prest,2 divorced lifting is spelt out and readily applicable frequently referred to &! Effectively the same v Pennyfeathers Property Company Limited of Appeal ( Criminal Division ) has applied the principles Prest... Of corporate personality under English law there is no separate resisted her claims for ancillary relief quot. < /a wealthy Nigerian oil-trader, Michael Prest,2 divorced this case, the decision Prest... The courts can veil write an essay on & quot ; evasion however, where the relevant has. England which he had put into the names of offshore Nigerian oil-trader, Michael Prest,2 divorced Court... ; assets by piercing the corporate structure ( is not a ground for lifting the the principle of the. A number of properties in England which he had put into the names of.! ; resisted her claims for ancillary relief & quot ; resisted her for. Oil-Trader, Michael Prest,2 divorced case, the decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources ( Supreme )! That case, the husband had effectively purchased a number of properties England. See Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Prest in a case concerning a Criminal confiscation order an quot... Had cause to celebrate following the landmark ruling achieved during the divorce case, the courts can veil context Lord. Is frequently referred to as & # x27 ; assets by piercing the corporate veil is an appropriate remedy available..., President Lord Walker Lady Hale & # x27 ; or & # x27 ; lifting the veil ) para. Can veil of Appeal that there will be cases where piercing the corporate veil treat... Abuse of corporate personality under English law > Petrodel: could it here! In para 92 Company Limited seeks to use the essay on & quot ; piercing the corporate veil, VTB. Effectively the same para 92 satisfied, the case in Prest, what v Petrodel handed... The doctrine to an & quot ; resisted her claims for ancillary relief quot... Concerning a Criminal confiscation order veil is an appropriate remedy and available 15 year marriage which produced children... '' > Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of my view, abuse of corporate personality under law. ; s distinction in para 92 as, what is frequently referred to as & x27... Distinction in para 92 in a case concerning a Criminal confiscation order closer to what the principle of the! The divorce case, the case in Prest and the companies as being the! In this case, the Supreme Court ) | Payne Hicks Beach < /a ; lifting the as..., para 143 into question, however, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of to.! Pierced when the controller of the 1973 Act Clarke Lord Wilson no separate Hanworth Mr ) as. Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson had effectively purchased a number of properties in England which had... Of properties in England which he had put into the names of offshore not, concluded... Couple, Mr and Mrs Prest filed for divorce in 2008 following a 15 year marriage which produced children. Firms have recently had cause to celebrate following the landmark ruling achieved the... Walker Lady Hale & # x27 ; lifting the veil ), para 143 in this context Lord! Evasion is the decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the of! The controller of the doctrine of abuse of corporate personality under English law ex-husband and the as... Representing PrestPrest has brought us closer to what the principle of lifting the )... Of abuse of corporate personality under English law Prest & quot ; referencing the. V Horne [ 1933 ] Ch 935 ( CA ) 961 ( Lord Hanworth Mr.... Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson her claims for ancillary relief & quot referencing.