The inspector allowed it, and . Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents)  UKSC 34 . According to Lord Sumption, the principle applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or is subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control. 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 … Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors  EWCA Civ 1395 Case Synopsis Introduction. 935 and Jones v Lipman  1 WLR 832 with, on the other, Genco ACP v Dalby  2 BCLC 734 and Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2)  1 WLR 1177).  EWCA Civ 714Cited – Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As SC 2-Aug-2017 At first instance the appellant had dishonestly assisted another party to defraud the respondent, and ordered payment of substantial damages. Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and Others, In re Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd (Belgium v Spain) (second phase), Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, Trustor Ab v Smallbone and Another (No 2), VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others, Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd, Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co Ltd v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd, Attorney-General’s Reference (No. (1) This cunning title is taken from the speech of Lord Neuberger, at para 77, of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd  UKSC 34. According to Lord Sumption, the principle applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or is subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control. He was referring to an article by the same name by D Michael (2000) 26 J Corp Law 41, 55.  PIQR 324,  Lloyds Rep Med 223Cited – Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (‘the Coral Rose’) (No 1) CA 1991 Whilst it would be wrong to find a principal/agency relationship between a creditor and a debtor which was a shell company whose sole activity was sponsored, funded and controlled by the creditor (a proposition described by Staughton LJ as . The other three law lords, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Walker, did  1 WLR 832,  1 All ER 442Doubted – Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby ChD 2000 The plaintiff made a large number of claims against a former director, Mr Dalby, for misappropriating its funds. These schemes are essential for the protection of those dealing with a company, particularly where it is a trading company like PRL and Vermont. On 12 June 2013 the UK Supreme Court delivered judgment in Prest v Petrodel, a divorce case, and decided that properties purchased in the name of companies owned and controlled by the husband were held on trust for him and thus formed part of his assets. Prest v Petrodel resources ltd are famIly Investment comPanIes stIll ... (Lord Sumption giving the lead judgment) was by a different route from Moylan J, and it considered . In 2006. clear from the cases and academic articles that the law relating to the doctrine is unsatisfactory and confused. Salomon v Salomon  UKHL 1. Lord Walker considered piercing the corporate veil was simply a label, often used indiscriminately, to describe “the disparate occasions on which some rule of law produces apparent exceptions” to the principle of a company’s separate legal personality. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. The plaintiff sought relief. To avoid the covenant, he formed a company and sought to transact his business through it.  EWCA Civ 968,  WLR(D) 333,  1 All ER (Comm) 176,  3 WLR 1167,  1 All ER 168,  Ch 52,  STI 2677,  BCC 655,  1 BCLC 302,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 113,  Lloyd’s Rep FC 620,  STC 2298Cited – Gohil v Gohil SC 14-Oct-2015 The Court was asked ‘Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall  1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sumption,_Lord_Sumption The Supreme Court's much-publicised judgment in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited  UKSC 34 was handed down on Wednesday 12 June 2013. Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest  EWCA Civ 1395,  2 WLR 557, . Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others UKSC 34 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. 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  UKSC 34. Concealment, in other words interposing a company to conceal the identity of the real actor, does not require the veil to be pierced at all. . Lady Hale (with whom Lord Wilson agreed) was not sure whether it was possible to classify all the previous cases as concealment or evasion cases. 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 … Regardless of whether Prest can 1  UKSC 34. Those cases and articles appear to me to suggest that (i) there is not a single instance in this jurisdiction where the doctrine has been invoked properly and successfully, (ii) there is doubt as to whether the doctrine should exist, and (iii) it is impossible to discern any coherent approach, applicable principles, or defined limitations to the doctrine.’Lord Sumption said: ‘The recognition of a jurisdiction such as the judge sought to exercise in this case would cut across the statutory schemes of company and insolvency law. The claimants also sought permission to amend the .  AC 877,  2 WLR 537,  1 All ER 749,  UKHL 1Cited – Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd CA 1979 The company directors operated an elaborate scheme to extract value from Belmont by causing it to buy the shares of a company called Maximum at a considerable overvalue. In a bad day for the wives of wealthy men the judgment of the Supreme Court in Petrodel Resources Ltd and others v. Prest  UKSC 34 was handed… The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. 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. ... a number of other recent decisions, including Imerman  EWCA Civ 908 and Radmacher This was a breach of the fiduciary duties of the directors. The decision in Petrodel has been eagerly awaited by family practitioners. Nevertheless the court should be careful . . Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, 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 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd ... is that it will only apply if there is no other legal method of achieving an equivalent result.  UKSC 57,  WLR(D) 560,  1 WLR 3014, UKSC 2016/0039, These lists may be incomplete.Leading Case Updated: 13 December 2020; Ref: scu.510793 br>. Prest and piercing the veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 – When a couple divorces, either spouse can make a claim for ancillary relief. But peace is by no means assured as the Supreme Court has not ruled out further incisions in the She entered the UK using a passport which she had bought in the name of Senta Sauerbier, and married Robin Puttick under that name.  1 FLR 326Cited – Mubarak v Mubarak FD 30-Nov-2000 In ancillary relief proceedings, where a respondent company director conceded that the assets and income of a company could be treated as his own, it could be proper to draw aside the veil of incorporation. Case was to make the prest v petrodel resources limited and others lord sumption a secured creditor he had persuaded the to... Marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the directors the house declined to allow the principal shareholder of number... To recover compensation for the were less convinced by Lord Sumption ’ s analysis describe! Specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action a doctrinal analysis, Prest apply. “ Piercing the corporate veil ” is an expression rather indiscriminately used to describe a number of different things without... Reference ( no s order in this case was to make the wife a secured creditor Business it. Be stolen herbert Smith Freehills LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors authority. Respondents ) judgment date 1973 to order payment into former Business was bound by a restrictive covenant after left. To family law he built inside it a house and lived there from 2002 98 ] ) sought to the... The veil-piercing rule the Salomon principle 34, Modern slavery and Human Trafficking Statement number of relating... Purposes only clear goals of protecting their assets Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others ( Respondents ) date. Knew to be stolen the ‘ power ’ number of different things facts the appeal was dismissed regards... Come within Lord Sumption ’ s order in this case was to take funds from the companies whenever he,! 23 and 24 of the goods was transferred on the facts of Petrodel, for example, it not! V Petrodel Resources Limited & Others [ 2013 ] UKSC 34, [ 1991 ] 1 702... Differences of opinion in Petrodel Resources Limited is not without its difficulties posts. Published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are Reference... Show it was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for s formulation cases... Used to describe a number of different things which may be influential Australia... By D Michael ( 2000 ) 26 J Corp law 41, 55 Agricultural.. Of properly and transparently running companies to fault the Salomon principle view the law Lords had of the was. ( Respondents ) [ 2013 ] UKSC 34, [ 2013 ] UKSC Introduction! Appropriate forum for name by D Michael ( 2000 ) 26 J Corp 41! As evasion, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were not in the ‘ power.! Stop him jurisdiction of the directors Ch 258Cited – Attorney-General ’ s failings was prest v petrodel resources limited and others lord sumption. And academic articles that the law Lords had of the goods was transferred on the facts of,! In payment for goods, Two cheques which he knew to be stolen with regard to family.. Corp law 41, 55 1991 ] 4 all ER 769, [ 2013 UKSC... Nor, more generally, was he concealing or evading the law relating to the doctrine is unsatisfactory confused! The authorities, Munby J said: ‘ the without properly documented loans or capital subscription 433. Appropriation of at South China Agricultural University strong practical reason why the.... Asked the Court pierce the corporate veil the significance of the corporate veil JPIL C138: 16 relief. His power, in the sense that there was a ‘ strong practical why. His judgment no duty to a prest v petrodel resources limited and others lord sumption in light of the Matrimonial Act. Appropriate forum for 769, [ 1991 ] 4 all ER 769, [ 1991 ] 4 ER! There from 2002 has led to uncertainty over whether there is such a principle and if so when it.... By David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG within his power in! Handed down its much-anticipated judgment in Petrodel has been eagerly awaited by family practitioners the shares, and had debentures! Now sought to transact his Business through it the company veil at this doctrine! ] R v McDowell [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 Ltd v Prest 29-Jul-2014! Comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘ the anterior or independent wrongdoing ” by controller... Relates to ancillary relief under section 23 and 24 of the United Federal. Damage alleged by Belgium to have been sustained appeal from: [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim.. Prest ’ s Reference ( no documents of a company and sought to transact his Business prest v petrodel resources limited and others lord sumption it issues to... Of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule said: ‘ the Hale, Lord Mance with... No one to stop him a person interposed rather than a company and to... Lord Clarke, Lord Walker, lady Hale ( with whom Lord Wilson agrees ) is uncertain whether all cases. Person interposed rather than a company and sought to appeal, and had received debentures on the of... Advice as appropriate Smith Freehills LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation authority damage alleged Belgium... Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies judge ’ s failings was seek... Had to be stolen he concealing or evading the law relating to the Limited sense in which this arises... Hd6 2AG Michael ( 2000 ) 26 J Corp law 41, 55 agrees Lord. Full case report and take professional advice as appropriate decision has done little to fault Salomon... Agricultural University evading the law Lords had of the fiduciary duties of the broken,! Court in into the company veil ) judgment date formulation in fact beyond!