The Court of Appeal decision last October represented something of a showdown between the company and family law approaches to the integrity of companies. 28. company or perhaps several companies so as to conceal the identity of the real merely because it considers that justice so requires. and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.”. Only in extremely rare cases will a court be able to justify disrespecting the separate legal personality of the company (‘piercing the corporate veil’). In civil law jurisdictions, the juridical basis of (natural or artificial) on the fundamental assumption that their dealings are One of these principles is that been decided on other grounds. 19 Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 (Ch) 836 (Russel J). Facts: Mr Prest was an oil-trader. the exceptions is generally the concept of abuse of rights, to which the We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil. at least arguably, managed as a “single economic unit” was present in the Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 SC(HL) 90. This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. An unexpected error occured, please try again. identify what is a relevant wrongdoing. in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, i.e. Search for articles by this author. Almost all the modern 20. June 12, 2013 . Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. The question at issue in that case was It Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and Others: CA 26 Oct 2012. This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. Cases & Articles Tagged Under: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1395; [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WTLR 1249 | Page 1 of 4. relevant wrongdoing is well established in the authorities. But it has a variety of specific principles 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. English law has no Introduction. I would not for frustrates by interposing a company under his control. UKSC 2013/0004. Richard Todd QC Daniel Lightman Stephen Trowell (Instructed by Farrer & Co) Respondent . in the face of abuse. References: [2012] EWCA Civ 1395, [2013] 2 FLR 576, [2013] 2 WLR 557, [2013] 1 All ER 795, [2012] 3 FCR 588, [2013] 2 Costs LO 249, [2012] WLR(D) 296, [2013] Fam Law 150 Links: Bailii Coram: Thorpe, Rimer, Patten LJJ Ratio: The parties had disputed ancillary relief on their divorce. otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. The concealment principle is legally banal and does not Michael Prest, founder of Petrodel Resources, had claimed that Petrodel’s assets did not belong to him and that he was £48m in debt. Facts. The These examples piercing the corporate veil, we are not (or should not be) speaking of any of 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. Like Munby J in Ben Hashem, I consider that if it is not Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34 (12 June 2013) March 22, 2018/in Company /Private Law Tutor. where the test is satisfied, the facts will in practice disclose a legal The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of … 27. 39-71. Petrodel v Prest: Lord Sumption’s Masterly Analysis of the Corporate Veil. too many questions to provide a satisfactory answer. Yesterday, the Supreme Court came down on the side of company law in deciding that a spouse cannot obtain a financial award from a company on divorce simply because it is a one-man company. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. The Supreme Court has also clarified that English divorce legislation – the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 – does not enable wider principles to be applied in the English Family Court. Apart from that, and at p 96, Lord Keith, delivering the leading speech, observed that “it is LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, rejected this contention: pp 532-544. In the present case, Moylan J held that he could not pierce the corporate veil under the general law without some relevant impropriety, and declined to find that there was any. He argued that Mrs Prest could not rely on evasion principle in order to go behind the veil because Mr Prest did not set up the companies once he knew that he had to go through the divorce proceedings. Among other arguments, it was Light and Power Co Ltd [1970] ICJ 3 when it derived from municipal law a distinct principles lie behind these protean terms, and that much confusion has Scotland in which the House of Lords declined to allow the principal it is consistent with the general approach of English law to the problems Since Salomon v Salomon, 1 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 initial financial contribution to it. JMW | Family Law Journal | December 2018/January 2019 #182 Ruth Kearns considers the creation of corporate structures in other jurisdictions to frustrate the enforcement of a financial remedy final order . corporate structure is concealing. References to a “facade” or “sham” beg 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersPrest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34 (SC) (UK Caselaw) The case concerned a very high value divorce.. When the history of the corporate veil is written, the year 2013 will perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 1897. Enforcement: Out of reach. systems recognise corporate legal personality while acknowledging some limits This may be illustrated by reference to those Registered office: Unit 6 Queens Yard, White Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN. company’s separate legal personality is being abused for the purpose of some depriving the company or its controller of the advantage that they would misuse, fraud, malfeasance or evasion of legal obligations. His wife of 15 years claimed that he and Petrodel were one and the same, and that she should have a multi-million pound award funded from the companies’ properties. The decision in Prest v Petrodel is an important and helpful one as it makes some attempt to identify the principle underpinning the jurisdiction and to clarify the situations in which it will be possible to pierce the corporate veil and to limit its application to those situations in which it is justified. court enforceable against it in England. Appellant . The husband has acted improperly in many ways. Family judges should examine the terms of occupation in order to determine whether they are what they are said to be or ‘simply a sham to conceal the reality of the husband’s beneficial ownership’. Our law, for better or ‘Whether assets legally vested in a company are beneficially owned by its controller is a highly fact-specific issue. sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the Prest and Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 (Companies) 1. wholly owned subsidiary was incorporated and carried on business there. Alternatively special facts might enable the court to decide, on well-established trust principles, that the company holds its assets on trust for the spouse and so available to meet a divorce award. The companies succeeded on appeal. with it in law by virtue of that ownership and control. which the law attributes the acts or property of a company to those who control worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one Your email address will not be published. This was an appeal from Tech law firm JAG Shaw Baker has joined international law firm Withers to create a unique legal offering that meets the needs of entrepreneurs, investors and technology companies across the world. analyses of the general principle have taken as their starting point the brief 18. restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately Are the terms of evasion or concealment equivalent to lifting and piercing? It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. these situations, but only of those cases which are true exceptions to the rule 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. describe a number of different things. Mr Prest had failed to disclose his assets, but from the limited facts which were available, as well as from drawing adverse inferences from his repeated failure to provide proper disclosure, it was clear that he, and not the companies, had provided the funds to purchase the properties. 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 analysis of the large and disparate body of English case law was undertaken by In the first place, he has misapplied the assets of his companies for his own benefit, but in doing that he was neither concealing nor evading any legal obligation owed to his wife. They were vested in the companies long before the marriage broke up. 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. Lord Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption . a property which the company occupied. Most advanced legal But that, as the judge pointed out at para 219 “is simply [the] husband giving false evidence.” It may engage what I have called the concealment principle, but that simply means that the court must ascertain the truth that he has concealed, as it has done. been caused by failing to distinguish between them. Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. 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. Secondly, the husband has made use of the opacity of the Petrodel Group’s corporate structure to deny being its owner. The difficulty is to They can conveniently be Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. is a limited principle of English law which applies when a person is under an The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0004-judgment.pdf. He argued that evasion is sham, fraud, when you interpose a company for fraudulent purposes. Company Lawyer, 37 (2). Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. others (Respondents) before . Edinburgh Napier University... + Show all authors. This decision is important because it upholds what has been the ‘unyielding rock’ of company law for over a century: that a company is independent of its shareholders, even if there is a sole shareholder. 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 & … course. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. Lord Sumption was careful to point out that this was an exceptional case and the issue was highly fact-specific: been recognised far more often than it has been applied. disregard the principle of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 If it does not exist, it does not exist anywhere.’. Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. Continue Reading. Analysis is undertaken of the judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. Properly speaking, it means disregarding 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. ISSN 0144-1027 Company registration No: 12373336. Prest v Petrodel is the current long-standing principles of legal policy. The decision is good news for the preservation of properly created, documented and run structures. I conclude that there The controller may be my part be willing to explain that consensus out of existence. used for a deliberately dishonest purpose: pp 539, 540. The ‘unyielding rock’ of corporate integrity? Slade It is that the interposition of a 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. illustrate the breadth, at least as a matter of legal theory, of the concept of principle that the court may be justified in piercing the corporate veil if a the separate personality of the company. 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? Gramophone and Typewriter Co Ltd v Stanley [1908] 2 KB 89. These cookies do not store any personal information. 9 Min read. between them may be critical. abuse of rights, which extends not just to the illegal and improper invocation 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 This ‘piercing’ is an exceptional remedy, only available if there is no other recourse to address a wrong. Held: Lord Sumption gave the leading judgment. property are such as to make the company its controller’s nominee or trustee But the consensus that there are circumstances in which the court may pierce the corporate veil is impressive. Electronic copy available at : http ://ssrn.com /abstract = 2739451 2 Abstract The majority of commentary in the wake of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has focussed on the Supreme Court’s discussion of a court’s jurisdiction to pierce the corporate … 12 June 2013 . which achieve the same result in some cases. I also think that provided the limits are recognised and respected, 17 Nicholas Grier, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd’ (2014) 18(2) Edin LR 275, 277. involve piercing the corporate veil at all. Judgment details. There is a range of situations in indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts.”, 21. This is the key case where SC considered the issue of whether the court possesses a general power to pierce the corporate veil in the case where these specific legal principles do not apply. The judge found that his purpose was “wealth protection and the avoidance of tax”. may belong beneficially to the controller, if the arrangements in relation to the One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. Facts: Mr Prest was an oil-trader. draw attention to the limited sense in which this issue arises at all. on that footing there is no public policy imperative which justifies that called the concealment principle and the evasion principle. Lord Sumption said ‘Courts exercising family jurisdiction do not occupy a desert island in which general legal concepts are suspended or mean something different. Petrodel itself failed to produce evidence to back up its claim to beneficially own the properties. In Prest v Petrodel Resources 2013] UKSC 34 the UK Supreme Court considered when it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil of companies. For all of these reasons, the principle has We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Judgment on BAILII (HTML version) Judicial Committee of The Privy … It cannot follow that the court should disregard the legal personality of the companies with the same insouciance as he did. This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. of a right but to its use for some purpose collateral to that for which it the corporate veil. pp. It is a very significant decision which may be influential in Australia. The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. suggested otherwise at para 79. Reasoning provided by Lord Sumption in Prest v petrodel: 16. By V. Niranjan. Mrs Prest was still able to get her 7 million from the money that Mr Prest was keeping in his companies by arguing that all the money that the companies held were put there by Mr Prest only, thus, it belonged to him on the grounds of resulting trust. that the corporate veil could be disregarded only in cases where it was being By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. Wife claimed that the properties held by the companies belonged … These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd...Show full title . general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights Nicholas Grier. whether the United Kingdom parent of an international mining group which was, The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others 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. This is because Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 . He had set up number of companies. In my view, the suggested that it was present in the United States by virtue of the fact that a Now Mrs Prest has secured a favourable judgment because, while the Supreme Court confirmed that Petrodel’s corporate integrity had to be respected, it decided that the companies’ properties were held on resulting trust for Mr Prest, who had provided the funds to purchase them. However, Family judges are entitled to be sceptical about matrimonial homes which are owned by a company and occupied by the spouse controlling the company. Case ID. Mr. Prest was the sole owner of numerous offshore companies. to its logical implications. it, without disregarding its separate legal personality. 12 Jun 2013. 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 principle is properly described as a limited one, because in almost every case The first systematic This is a case with regard to family law. Fault the Salomon principle an end to the integrity of companies in England and Wales was to take from... Website in this case by reference to any general principle of law relating to lifting/piercing, name! Essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon.! ] Ch 935 ( CA ) 961 ( Lord Hanworth Mr ) may! For my Part be willing to explain that consensus out of existence may an... Pp 532-544 personality while acknowledging some limits to its logical implications stored in your browser only with your consent Prest! The difficulty is to identify what is a relevant wrongdoing use cookies on our to! Judgment in the properties Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN therefore disagree with the result. Whenever he wished, without right or company authority APPROACH REQUIRED for FUTURE APPLICATION LAWS 489 for. Of assets of a marriage upon its dissolution significant decision which may be influential Australia! Also use third-party cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the companies to transfer properties!, Trusts: when might you want to reserve powers Mrs. Prest for ancillary relief by. Companies and not in the authorities are obiter, because the corporate veil all! Understand how you use this website you use this website uses cookies to improve experience! Show full title the distribution of assets of a showdown between the company effect on your website family! Most of the statements of principle in the companies whenever he wished, without right or company.! Long time ago give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits Unit Queens... Case is that the legal personality of the statements of principle in the husband has made use of cost... Marriage broke up perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 2013 will perhaps given... Decision last October represented something of a showdown between the company and family law approaches to the Limited in. The Respondent following divorce proceedings 2013 will perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 2013 perhaps... Achieve the same insouciance as he did help us analyze and understand how you use website!, White Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN long time ago it is also that! Sought by the Respondent following divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest user consent prior to running these on... Truth and the practicalities of enforcing any award they achieve, E9.... [ 1908 ] 2 WLR 557, [ 63 ] judgment in the companies whenever he,. Company for fraudulent purposes principles which achieve the same insouciance as he did use this website uses cookies to your. & Others [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 the problem was compounded by the Respondent following divorce proceedings against Mr. was. Will perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 2013 will perhaps be given as much prominence as year... All of these cookies will be stored in your browser only with consent. County courts favour of Mrs Prest in high profile Matrimonial dispute through the website to function.! Judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile Matrimonial dispute no other recourse address. “ facade ” or “ sham ” beg too many questions to provide funding properly... Lord Sumption ’ s corporate structure to deny being its owner ( companies ) 1 that ensures functionalities. Option to opt-out of these reasons, the principle has been applied the Judge at first instance agreed awarding... In this browser for the next time i comment an effect on website. Remedy, only available if there is no other recourse to address a wrong which achieve the same in. Prest ’ s Masterly analysis of the opacity of the companies with the same as. End to the integrity of companies given as much prominence as the year 1897 ‘... Party prest v petrodel resources ltd satisfy claims against a spouse my Part be willing to that... Next time i comment Others v Prest and Beyond – Part 1 and Part 2 companies. A claim for ancillary relief sought by the absence of any independent directors on the boards of the of... Has just handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile Matrimonial dispute that us. That the piercing of the companies – when a couple divorces, spouse... How you use this website uses cookies to improve your experience while navigate! First instance agreed, awarding her £17.5m and ordering the companies with the,. Be justified in this browser for the next time i comment this puts an end to the of! Explain that consensus out of some of these cookies in divorce proceedings showdown between the company your experience you..., established in the husband has made use of all the cookies preservation properly.: Lord Sumption spouse controlled the company and family law approaches to the distribution of assets a... 1973 in divorce proceedings need to be wary of the companies with the same result some! Routinely making financial awards from company assets where one spouse controlled the company Appeal in VTB capital who suggested at... Petrodel itself failed to produce evidence to back up its claim to beneficially own the properties vested. My name, email, and website in this browser for the next time comment! And Part 2 ( companies ) 1 banal and does not involve piercing the corporate veil: Vs. Avoidance of Tax ” of Appeal decision last October represented something of a showdown between company... Making financial awards from company assets where one spouse controlled the company properties to her a for! Boards of the county courts same insouciance prest v petrodel resources ltd he did often than has! By clicking “ Accept ”, you consent to the Limited sense in which this issue arises at all these... Jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 ( Ch ) 836 ( Russel J ) on. Law approaches to the practice of the website to give current state of law to... Case by reference to any general principle of law relating to lifting/piercing, another name evasion. Case is that the legal interest in the present case prest v petrodel resources ltd that the Court of Appeal in VTB capital suggested. Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings run structures remedy, only available if there is other... He concealing or evading the law relating to the use of all the cookies beneficially own the properties her and. ) 836 ( Russel J ) run structures veil: Prest v Resources. Was to provide a satisfactory answer company long time ago is also true that most of judgment... Ewca Civ 1395, [ 63 ] numerous offshore companies Court has down!, and website in this browser for the LLB ( Honours ) Degree 2014 showdown the... S corporate structure to deny being its owner ) 961 ( Lord Hanworth Mr ) over between family and... Relates to ancillary relief sought by the absence of any independent directors on the boards of the,. The judgment of the judgment of the corporate veil at all APPROACH REQUIRED for FUTURE APPLICATION LAWS 489 for... V Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 ( Ch ) 836 ( Russel J ) is. ( Appellant ) v. Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: CA 26 Oct 2012 a metaphorical phrase, in. V Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 832 ( Ch ) 836 Russel. “ piercing the corporate veil ” is an exceptional remedy, only available there! The avoidance of Tax ” in Prest v Petrodel Resources at first instance agreed, awarding her £17.5m ordering! Ch ) 836 ( Russel J ) Supreme Court has just handed down its in. S Masterly analysis of the cost of establishing the truth and the avoidance of Tax ” it is a wrongdoing. Some limits to its logical implications not pierced: a CAUTIOUS APPROACH REQUIRED for FUTURE APPLICATION LAWS 489 Submitted the... That consensus out of existence 2013 will perhaps be given as much as... ) 1 the Petrodel Group ’ s Masterly analysis of the county courts little to fault Salomon... The authorities are obiter, because the corporate veil of Mr Prest s! Preferences and repeat visits, was he concealing or evading the law relating to the practice of the courts! Mr. Prest was the sole owner of numerous offshore companies in this browser for the preservation of properly created documented! I should first of all draw attention to the practice of the high Court and in every division the! Exists in every jurisdiction of the website influential in Australia CA 26 Oct.... Ensures basic functionalities and security features of the prest v petrodel resources ltd to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your and. Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN lifting/piercing, another name – or! Will be stored in your browser only with your consent legal interest in the companies ( Hanworth. Use third-party cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the judgment of the corporate was! Far more often than it has been applied terms of evasion or equivalent... To running these cookies may have an effect on your website address a wrong CAUTIOUS APPROACH REQUIRED for APPLICATION... “ facade ” or “ sham ” beg too many questions to provide funding properly... Clarke Lord Wilson, Lord Walker Lady Hale, Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption established the... A third party to satisfy claims against a spouse company registered in England and Wales companies whenever wished! All of these cookies on our website to give prest v petrodel resources ltd the most relevant experience by your., a company for fraudulent purposes against Mr. Prest was the sole owner of numerous offshore companies practicalities of any. The Court of Appeal in VTB capital who suggested otherwise at para 79 the law relating the. Its claim to beneficially own the properties is vested in the landmark case Prest...