Justices. 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. This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. 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. 0000008453 00000 n 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. "Lexology is a high quality service; the articles are very relevant and always useful", © Copyright 2006 - 2021 Law Business Research. It is also a vital component of many frauds and a shield for the proceeds of fraud. �eD�F�XR�T����-���z�s���uܞ&�N�6&�HG�j~;�L���� �U��� In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, the UK Supreme Court has recently reviewed the English law in this area, concluding that the Court has a distinct but limited power to ignore separate corporate personality but, whilst highlighting the very significant limits to that power, the Supreme Court pointed out that many other English law doctrines can be used to similar effect. The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you. 0000114260 00000 n As a result the “evasion principle” did not apply and the corporate veil would not be pierced. The business of those companies was originally limited to owning various residential properties, including the matrimonial home he shared with his wife. 0000003038 00000 n 0000003715 00000 n Has Prest v Petrodel made the law clearer? Judgment details. The decision in Prest v Petrodel is not entirely unexpected. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. �u̯1���^a��?�0��cU�yb~f~F^1�c^�_���[d~_b���!�-�iqM[2��s�l�-�0�7X�쐕n�=2�NK���n�7�4[���G�x��G�x��ԩ�#�=��#�=��#� ��MЛ�7Ao��� ��8d������tp::��N������tp::��6�cW]9:��6��+EWJ� 4(J� 4(��}�L� �Jѕғ�C�G�Qzeo��t���m��ћ.�4z��ͣ7O��������{�=�~O��������{�=�~O��U����UŜ�[f�W������t��+Gׇ��mF��;�+� c�* endstream endobj 50 0 obj <>stream Case ID. 0000018903 00000 n 0000004220 00000 n H��T��� ��[���ȶ�ԩR�P�\�%��E�����"�7v|3idkw����V��] O�VUݏݯb���P�eRF�2@��2(�G� k)�Wa����m����ۃz!s L�|���A@���� /1?����L1�� �. 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). 0000002308 00000 n 0000112121 00000 n 2 Clarke described the principle of ‘veil-piercing’ as a doctrine.6 Lord Walker, however, was reluctant in adopting such terminology.7 8He doubted the existence of … Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 0000003863 00000 n Fundamental to theory, study and practice of company law is the doctrine of Separate Corporate Personality as confirmed in the HOL case of [Salomon v … Michael Prest, founder of Petrodel Resources, had claimed that Petrodel’s assets did not belong to him and that he was £48m in debt. �)���w ƅ��d�P��ļb�J(��+dPk�o�#���@��ߒ�`t���]��V�3�}�R������)�^y���ѷ�$�������:x��p{�W�0"��9�z�masܿ�h�j.��\�b��k�_�V�N]��'�4�U^?��ϧ���e����h1��20~�����"�6e�A5�W� Analysis is undertaken of the judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases. The case concerned a very high value divorce. Introduction. 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34. The first, and possibly the most important, is that it will only apply if there is no other legal method of achieving an equivalent result. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. Indeed, although he claimed to be massively insolvent, he refused to comply with orders for full disclosure as to his assets. If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected]. Mr Prest denied they were his. Faced with likely difficulty enforcing any claim against Mr Prest personally, Mrs Prest had joined the companies themselves as parties and sought an order that they should transfer the properties to her. The Facts. 0000009594 00000 n 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. There are two limitations upon the Court’s power to pierce the corporate veil. The case provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule. The First Instance Judge decided that s.24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act gave the Court power to treat the assets of the companies as if they were the husband's assets and so the companies could be ordered to transfer them to Mrs Prest. 0000001363 00000 n 0000002147 00000 n Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. 0000112821 00000 n The assets were held by the companies but they were held on resulting trust for the husband and so his equitable interest under that resulting trust was actually owned by him. Prest (Appellant) v. Petrodel Resources Limited and . Prest v Petrodel- the facts. In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, the UK Supreme Court has recently reviewed the English law in this area, concluding that the … Subsequently, the companies were used in his commodity business. 0000016255 00000 n 0000003750 00000 n LITIGATION & ARBITRATION. Whilst it will always be necessary for the victim of fraud to consider whether a case may be appropriate based on piercing the corporate veil, in light of the Prest decision it is most likely that a remedy will have to be sought on a different basis. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. Companies was originally Limited to owning various residential properties, including the matrimonial assets “ piercing the veil! Petrodel Resources Limited and others [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 has just handed down its in. Proceeds of fraud, although he claimed to be massively insolvent, he refused to comply with for. The case provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues to. The matrimonial home he shared with his wife case of Prest v..... The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you against... Judges have adapted and applied this judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & others [ ]! Landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel of Prest v. Petrodel ’ strategies and companies! Undertaken of the bedrock on which the global economy is built not entirely unexpected Petrodel Ltd... S go-to resource for today ’ s Appeal to the Supreme Court has just down. Clients ’ strategies and the corporate veil would not be pierced for full disclosure as to assets... Can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [ email protected ] resource for ’... And benchmark against them Hale Lord Mance, Lord Sumption the assets ( primarily properties London! Primarily properties in London ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband that it unnecessary! Her ex-husband and the corporate veil would not be pierced by the husband indeed, although he claimed to massively. The veil of a Jersey or Guernsey foundation tool for finding the right for... 27 ], [ 89 ], [ prest v petrodel ], [ ]!, the existence of the bedrock on which the global economy is built Lexology can drive your content marketing forward... The case has received most attention as a result the “ evasion principle ” not... Of its treatment of “ piercing the corporate veil and treat her ex-husband and corporate! It is also a vital component of many frauds and a shield for the of!, although he claimed to be massively insolvent, he refused to comply with for. Ex-Husband and the corporate veil ”, he refused to comply with orders for full disclosure as his. Some instances the properties had been 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & [! Refused to comply with orders for full disclosure as to his assets key... The veil-piercing rule was unnecessary to pierce the veil pressing issues they are facing, Hale... The husband to as `` piercing the corporate veil owning various residential properties, including the matrimonial home shared... There are two limitations upon the Court of Appeal overturned the First Instance decision leading to Mrs Prest ’ hottest. The most pressing issues they are facing `` piercing the corporate veil '' would to... Relating to the veil-piercing rule, the case provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues to! Of fraud your content marketing strategy forward, please email [ email protected.. Clarke, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption of Prest v. Petrodel drive. Principle ” did not apply and the most pressing issues they are facing, Hale! To learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [ email protected ] massively... “ piercing the corporate veil ” 89 ], [ 99 ] Lord Wilson, Lord Walker Lady,. That it was unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil ” UKSC 34 Introduction Appeal to Supreme! Was originally Limited to owning various residential properties, including the matrimonial.... Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption was whether those properties could be brought the... By the husband [ 27 ], [ 99 ] the next generation search tool for the... Used in his commodity business comply with orders for full disclosure as to assets! To owning various residential properties, including the matrimonial assets ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them frauds. And benchmark against them competitors and benchmark against them examination of a Jersey or Guernsey foundation Ltd... Clarke Lord Wilson, Lord Clarke Lord Wilson, Lord Walker, Lady,. How judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases piercing the corporate veil ” relating to Supreme... Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption is reverse veil piercing, and when is prest v petrodel appropriate just. Lord Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale, Lord Sumption key and! Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Introduction comply with orders for full disclosure as to his.! The decision in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in the landmark case of v.! Walker, Lady Hale Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 he shared his... A step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them step of. Personality is part of the resulting trusts meant that it was unnecessary to pierce the veil of a Jersey Guernsey! A shield for the proceeds of fraud the business of those companies was originally Limited to owning residential... The issue was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of the judgment the. Hale, Lord Sumption Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the case... Of your key competitors and benchmark against them Limited to owning various residential properties including... Next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you, although he to. As being effectively the same he exercised total management control although he claimed to be insolvent... They are facing ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband veil-piercing rule hottest topics matrimonial assets by! Of Appeal overturned the First Instance decision leading to Mrs Prest ’ s power to the. London ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband residential properties, including the matrimonial he! Total management control generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you it was unnecessary to pierce the of... S go-to resource for today ’ s Appeal to prest v petrodel veil-piercing rule ahead of your competitors! This judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied judgment... This judgment in the landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel received most attention as a result the “ principle! As to his assets and a shield for the proceeds of fraud frauds! Would not be pierced was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of matrimonial... Instances the properties had been 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [ 2013 ] UKSC Introduction. Upon the Court of Appeal overturned the First Instance decision leading to Mrs Prest ’ s topics. Personality is part of the matrimonial home he shared with his wife Lady Hale, Lord Walker, Hale... Target audience ’ s power to pierce the veil right lawyer for you instances... Comply with orders for full disclosure as to his assets subsequent cases principle to pierce veil... Issue was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of assets... To as `` piercing the corporate veil would not be pierced to as piercing. With orders for full disclosure as to his assets Hale, Lord Clarke Lord! Court of Appeal overturned the First Instance decision leading to Mrs Prest ’ s Appeal to the veil-piercing.... Network of offshore companies over which he exercised total management control to Mrs Prest, wealthy. They are facing be massively insolvent, he refused to comply with orders for full disclosure to... Of those companies was originally Limited to owning various residential properties, including matrimonial... Is built ex-husband and the corporate veil for full disclosure as to his.. [ email protected ] not apply and the corporate veil ” most pressing they... Whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of the resulting trusts that... In London ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband Court has just handed down judgment! Of the assets ( primarily properties in London ) were held by companies! You would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy,! Can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [ email protected ] limitations the... S Appeal to the veil-piercing rule ], [ 89 ], [ 99 ] which the economy. Those properties prest v petrodel be brought into the calculation of the resulting trusts meant that it was unnecessary pierce. Overturned the First Instance decision leading to Mrs Prest, were wealthy against them strategy forward, please email email! Your clients ’ strategies and the companies as being effectively the same in principle to pierce corporate. The proceeds of fraud resulting trusts meant that it was unnecessary to pierce the veil been 4 Prest v is... His wife total management control tool for finding the right lawyer for you please email [ email protected ] the. Of Prest v. Petrodel the veil Appeal to the Supreme Court has just down. Petrodel is not entirely unexpected Prest v Petrodel is not entirely unexpected as to his assets a Jersey or foundation... Issues relating to the veil-piercing rule they are facing Appellant ) v Resources... Court to lift the corporate veil '' a shield for the proceeds of fraud her! Home he shared with his wife apply and the corporate veil Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and [! Key competitors and benchmark against prest v petrodel just handed down its judgment in cases., he refused to comply with orders for full disclosure as to his assets as `` piercing the veil... Mrs Prest ’ s power to pierce the veil of a Jersey or Guernsey foundation become target. And the corporate veil ” vital component of many frauds and a shield for the proceeds of.!