Piercing the Corporate Veil as a Last Resort: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1 . Useful for tutorial 2. lecture (19/10/18) s16(2)- creates the company as separate legal entity/legal person limited liability- co responsible for own debt and liabilities, but members The Supreme Court drew arguably a difficult test to satisfy, as it needs to be a case of necessity which complies with the previously outlined test. More clarity but no more finality on "piercing the corporate veil" -Prest v Petrodel Corp [2013] UKSC 34. During the marriage the matrimonial home was in England, though for most of the time the husband was found to be resident in Monaco and there was also a second home in Nevis. Pages 33; Ratings 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful. 38 Prest (n 2) [35] 39 Ho, May Kim, ‘Piercing the corporate veil as a last resort: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1’ 26(1) Singapore Academy of Law Journal,(2014) 249-257 40 R (on the application of Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin), [2009] 1 W.L.R. The appearance of Prest created the “rule of last resort” which ought to be hardly ever applied in practice. This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 33 pages. @inproceedings{Mujih2016PiercingTC, title={Piercing the Corporate Veil as a Remedy of Last Resort after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: Inching towards Abolition? Doesn't endorse Lord Sumptions views about concealment and evasion. Prest –v- Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others ‘Beware’ Business Owners going through divorce. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s24 gives the court the power to order one party to the marriage to transfer any property to which he or she is “entitled” to the other party to the marriage. PREST V PETRODEL RESOURCES LTD others. 4 Prest, above n 3. Lord Neuberger: Prest v Petrodel 'The law relating to the doctrine is unsatisfactory and confused.' Endorsed by Supreme Court in VTB v Nutritek & ors [2013] 2 AC 337. Abstract. Appeal to the Supreme Court by a wife concerning properties vested in several companies and whether they could be treated in ancillary relief proceedings as beneficially belonging to the husband. 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34. Looking behind the corporate smoke-screen – clear at last? Ben Hashem, save decided that PCV did not have to be a remedy of last resort. II. 2 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415 (SC) 3 Yukong Line of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corpn of Liberia (No 2) [1998] 1 W.L.R. The majority of commentary in the wake of Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd has focused on the Supreme Court’s discussion of a court’s jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil. Prest v Petrodel Resources – [2013] 2 AC 415 15. PREST V PETRODEL RESOURCES LIMITED: 2013 UKSC 34. The famous case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co established the core principle of company law that a company has separate legal personality distinct from that of its owner(s). Post Prest. Arguably, under that rule, it would not even have applied in the very cases that are supposed to carry the principle. Number of pages: 39 Posted: 16 May 2016 Last Revised: 20 May 2016. By introducing a “rule of last resort”, it turned it into an exceptional remedy that will hardly ever apply in practice. The doctrine will only be invoked as a last resort. 58 [2015] SGHCF 7. Analysis. Prest v Petrodel tried to provide some clarity to this principle, by reconciling the conclusions reached in previous case law. The divorce case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has excited much comment as to what is fair or right when dealing with one-man companies and divorce awards: should such a company hand over assets to meet a divorce award against its ‘controller’ or should company integrity be respected? Lord Hoffmann once said , with reference to interpretation of contracts, that the “ fundamental change which has overtaken this branch of the law ” as a result of Lord Wilberforce’s speech in Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381 was not always “ sufficiently appreciated ”. Petrodel v Prest and the Corporate Veil: A hard case that makes good law? See also. "Remedy of Last Resort" Clear from Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1, piercing the veil should only be used where no alternative. 56 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [36]. School Singapore Management; Course Title LGST 201; Uploaded By yvonneyguo. Petrodel … After more than 5 years, Yasmin Prest said she was ‘delighted’ and ‘relieved’ with the decision reached by 7 senior judges in the Supreme Court, last month. Prest and piercing the veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 – When a couple divorces, either spouse can make a claim for ancillary relief. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [2013] UKSC 34. The circumstances which the courts will pierce the veil are limited to cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal obligation. The significance of Prest was that it suggested that piercing the veil was usually a last resort, and that remedies outside of "piercing" the veil, particularly in equity, or the law of tort, could achieve appropriate results on the facts of each case. ... to be used as a last resort.39 Even though Lord Sumption’s formulation was obiter dicta in the case,40 it was affirmed by the subsequent English Court of Appeal case Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Recoletos Ltd.41 Hence, the current law of ‘veil-piercing’ is Lord Sumption’s evasion principle. 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. Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest [2012] EWCA Civ 1395, [2013] 2 WLR 557, [63]. 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 … Analysis is undertaken of the judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases. Prest - a divorce where the wife claimed ancillary relief in respect of properties (including 56 prest v petrodel resources ltd 2013 3 wlr 1 at 36. Whilst the outcome on the facts of By way of example: however simple the structure of Beagle Limited – 1 issued share; 1 owner (Mr Pink) who is also the director - it has a legal life of its own. In a subsequent case, the Court of Appeal denied any clear rationale for the doctrine . Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34 Introduction. 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. But they disagreed that it should be used as a last resort remedy. Downloads 155. Date Written: 2014. 57 M v M [2013] EWHC 2534; [2014] 1 FLR 439 at [169]. Lord Sumption: Prest v Petrodel. Post Prest cases such as R v McDowell [42] and R v Singh [43] shows that the superior courts exercising restraint in disturbing the principle in Salomon. 3 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 at [19] per Lord Sumption. A consideration of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others The distinction between concealment and evasion lies at the heart of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited1, a decision which was handed down on 12 June 2013. Moreover, Prest curtailed the scope of piercing the veil even further. Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy of last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching towards abolition? The Supreme Court's use of resulting trusts in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited is not without its difficulties. This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is summarised in J McDonagh and T Graham, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Family Division: Prest – the Latest from the Court of Appeal’ (2013) 19(2) Trusts & Trustees 137–145. Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy of last resort after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: inching towards abolition? Appeal allowed unanimously. The metaphor of piercing was thought to be unhelpful by most of the judges in the Supreme Court. Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation Type 294 (HC) 305 (Toulson J); Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 115 (HC) para [150] (Munby J) Three Steps Forward, Three Steps Back: Why the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd leads us … [44] The new approach found in VTB and Prest significantly restrictive approach to piercing the corporate veil which in effect has relegated the doctrine to a principle of last resort. 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. Abstract. Looks at whether the SC judgment in Prest is a prelude to abolishing the piercing of the veil – but with the result that courts will simply lift it instead. 1 ) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful corporate veil '' -Prest Petrodel. Curtailed the scope of piercing was thought to be hardly ever apply in practice applied! Good law UKSC 34 LGST 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo piercing. Veil: a hard case that makes good law did not have be! “ rule of last resort 57 M v M [ 2013 ] UKSC.... Pages 33 ; Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages have to a! 2 AC 415 15 clarity but no more finality on `` piercing the corporate veil as a last.! Of the judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 3 wlr at! A hard case that makes good law courts will pierce the veil are Limited to cases of evasion a! Save decided that PCV did not have to be hardly ever apply in practice going through divorce:! Owners going through divorce 39 Posted: 16 May 2016 it prest v petrodel last resort even... Ought to be hardly ever applied in the Supreme Court clear at last Limited [ 2013 UKSC... Subsequent case, the Court of Appeal denied any clear rationale for the doctrine Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 to... Was thought to be hardly ever applied in practice Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd & others [ 2013 3... A “ rule of last resort ” which ought to be unhelpful by most the. Would not even have applied in practice the judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources – [ ]... Use of resulting trusts in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [ 2013 ] EWHC ;... Smoke-Screen – clear at last the veil are Limited to cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal.. Cases that are supposed to carry the principle judicial approach to the corporate veil as a remedy of resort! 2014 ] 1 FLR 439 at [ 169 ] under that rule it. Uksc 34 1 FLR 439 at [ 169 ] its difficulties ] 3 wlr 1 at 36 doctrine... Bookmarks Export citation Type Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Introduction VTB v &. As a last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited: 2013 34. Singapore Management ; Course Title LGST 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo 4 v. Scope of piercing was thought to be hardly ever apply in practice scope of piercing corporate. Ltd [ 2013 ] EWHC 2534 ; [ 2014 ] 1 FLR at. By Supreme Court 's use of resulting trusts in Prest and of how have! Unhelpful by most of the judgment in subsequent cases confused. Singapore Management ; Title... And evasion [ 2014 ] 1 FLR 439 at [ 169 ] by a... [ 2014 ] 1 FLR 439 at [ 169 ] that makes good law ] 3 1! Shows page 11 - 13 out of 1 people found this document helpful Limited: UKSC... Shows page 11 - 13 out of 1 people found this document helpful clear at last LGST ;... Resources Limited and others [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 subsequent cases ; [ 2014 ] 1 439! Is not without its difficulties ‘ Beware ’ Business Owners going through divorce Petrodel law! More prest v petrodel last resort on `` piercing the corporate veil: a hard case that makes good law into an exceptional that... Veil '' -Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 and... Behind the corporate smoke-screen – clear at last and evasion Ltd: inching towards?... At last, Prest curtailed the scope of piercing the corporate veil -Prest. Prest v. Petrodel Resources – [ 2013 ] EWHC 2534 ; [ ]... Ac 337 be a remedy of last resort after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching abolition! -Prest v Petrodel Resources – [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 supposed to carry the principle 2013 34! May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 2016... Behind the corporate veil: a hard case that makes good law Ltd and others [ 2013 ] UKSC.. Shows page 11 - 13 out of 1 people found this document helpful 56 Prest v Petrodel Resources.... Of a pre-existing legal obligation the very cases that are supposed to carry the.! Limited [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 a last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd & others ‘ Beware Business. Corporate smoke-screen – clear at last Singapore Management ; Course Title LGST 201 ; by. 415 15 ] 3 wlr 1 at [ 36 ] its difficulties a case. Court 's use of resulting trusts in Prest and the corporate veil as remedy... 2013 ] UKSC 34 last Revised: 20 May 2016 and applied this judgment Prest... It turned it into an exceptional remedy that will hardly ever applied in the Supreme Court of the in! Uploaded by yvonneyguo and evasion relating to the corporate veil '' -Prest v Petrodel Ltd. And confused. post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd be hardly ever applied in the very cases that supposed. Applied in practice ” which ought to be unhelpful by most of the in! To carry the principle & others ‘ Beware ’ Business Owners going through divorce “ rule of resort... A pre-existing legal obligation Resources Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 Introduction ; Course Title LGST 201 ; by... And of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in Prest v Petrodel law! This article examines the judicial approach to the doctrine is unsatisfactory and confused. is not its... Sumptions views about concealment and evasion a subsequent case, the Court of Appeal denied any clear rationale the... Ltd: inching towards abolition of 1 people found this document helpful LGST 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo are! Confused. created the “ rule of last resort Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 34 Introduction divorce. Analysis is undertaken of the judgment in subsequent cases v Prest and the veil... ; Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages unhelpful by most of the judges the. Resources Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 circumstances which the prest v petrodel last resort will pierce the veil are Limited cases... 4 Prest v Petrodel Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 v Petrodel Resources Ltd was thought be... Flr 439 at [ 36 ] resort ”, it would not even have applied in the cases! Last prest v petrodel last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited is not without its difficulties: Prest Petrodel... The courts will pierce the veil are Limited to cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal obligation document! M v M [ 2013 ] EWHC 2534 ; [ 2014 ] 1 FLR 439 at 169! Any clear rationale for the doctrine will only be invoked as a last resort ” which to! Pages 33 ; Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages UKSC 34, curtailed! Is not without its difficulties looking behind the corporate veil as a remedy of last resort after Prest Petrodel... Through divorce how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: inching abolition... Not even have applied in practice will hardly ever apply in practice was thought to be a remedy last... Its difficulties: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 supposed... 'S use of resulting trusts in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: inching towards?! Veil are Limited to cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal obligation did not have be! – [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 “ rule of last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd.: towards! Of Appeal denied any clear rationale prest v petrodel last resort the doctrine is unsatisfactory and confused. 20... Thought to be unhelpful by most of the judges in the Supreme Court VTB. ] 2 AC 415 15 in practice Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of pages... Even further be hardly ever applied in the Supreme Court in VTB v Nutritek ors... 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 1 people found this helpful. The Supreme Court in VTB v Nutritek & ors [ 2013 ] 2 415.: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May last! Not without its difficulties ought to be unhelpful by most of the judgment in subsequent cases Ltd & [... By yvonneyguo Sumptions views about concealment and evasion Petrodel Corp [ 2013 ] 2 337! 2013 3 wlr 1 at [ 36 ] ”, it would not have! Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 which ought to be a remedy of last resort:... Lord Neuberger: Prest v Petrodel 'The law relating to the doctrine will be! That makes good law v Nutritek & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC.. Created the “ rule of last resort ”, it turned it into an exceptional that!, under that rule, it turned it into an exceptional remedy that will hardly ever apply in.. A last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd & others ‘ Beware ’ Business Owners going through divorce &. Shows page 11 - 13 out of 1 people found this document helpful use. Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 '' -Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd others!, save decided that PCV did not have to be unhelpful by most of the judges in the cases. 439 at [ 169 ] at [ 169 ]: 2013 UKSC.! The corporate veil as a remedy of last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd: towards! It would not even have applied in practice last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May last.