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. By introducing a “rule of last resort”, it turned it into an exceptional remedy that will hardly ever apply in practice. 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. Date Written: 2014. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [2013] UKSC 34. Lord Neuberger: Prest v Petrodel 'The law relating to the doctrine is unsatisfactory and confused.' Looking behind the corporate smoke-screen – clear at last? More clarity but no more finality on "piercing the corporate veil" -Prest v Petrodel Corp [2013] UKSC 34. 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. 4 Prest, above n 3. Prest –v- Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others ‘Beware’ Business Owners going through divorce. 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? Ben Hashem, save decided that PCV did not have to be a remedy of last resort. Analysis. Petrodel v Prest and the Corporate Veil: A hard case that makes good law? 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Prest v Petrodel tried to provide some clarity to this principle, by reconciling the conclusions reached in previous case law. 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. Prest - a divorce where the wife claimed ancillary relief in respect of properties (including 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. PREST V PETRODEL RESOURCES LIMITED: 2013 UKSC 34. Number of pages: 39 Posted: 16 May 2016 Last Revised: 20 May 2016. Moreover, Prest curtailed the scope of piercing the veil even further. Analysis is undertaken of the judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases. The Supreme Court's use of resulting trusts in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited is not without its difficulties. School Singapore Management; Course Title LGST 201; Uploaded By yvonneyguo. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34 Introduction. Doesn't endorse Lord Sumptions views about concealment and evasion. Prest and piercing the veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 – When a couple divorces, either spouse can make a claim for ancillary relief. Petrodel … The circumstances which the courts will pierce the veil are limited to cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal obligation. Downloads 155. 57 M v M [2013] EWHC 2534; [2014] 1 FLR 439 at [169]. Piercing the Corporate Veil as a Last Resort: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1 . ... 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 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. Post Prest. Useful for tutorial 2. The appearance of Prest created the “rule of last resort” which ought to be hardly ever applied in practice. Abstract. Whilst the outcome on the facts of 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 … This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 33 pages. 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. 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 … 3 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 at [19] per Lord Sumption. II. 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). Add to My Bookmarks Export citation Type Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy of last resort after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: inching towards abolition? 56 prest v petrodel resources ltd 2013 3 wlr 1 at 36. Appeal allowed unanimously. @inproceedings{Mujih2016PiercingTC, title={Piercing the Corporate Veil as a Remedy of Last Resort after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: Inching towards Abolition? 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. 56 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [36]. 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. 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. Arguably, under that rule, it would not even have applied in the very cases that are supposed to carry the principle. PREST V PETRODEL RESOURCES LTD others. Endorsed by Supreme Court in VTB v Nutritek & ors [2013] 2 AC 337. 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 – [2013] 2 AC 415 15. See also. 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. "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. The doctrine will only be invoked as a last resort. 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. Pages 33; Ratings 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful. Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy of last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching towards abolition? Lord Sumption: Prest v Petrodel. In a subsequent case, the Court of Appeal denied any clear rationale for the doctrine . 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. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. 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 ”. The metaphor of piercing was thought to be unhelpful by most of the judges in the Supreme Court. [44] 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. Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest [2012] EWCA Civ 1395, [2013] 2 WLR 557, [63]. 58 [2015] SGHCF 7. V. Petrodel Resources Limited [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 and others [ ]. Post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & others ‘ Beware ’ Business Owners going through divorce judicial approach the. V Nutritek & ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 apply in practice Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 and applied judgment... ] 2 AC 337 2013 UKSC 34 Introduction does n't endorse lord Sumptions about. 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo more finality on `` piercing the veil Limited... Lgst 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo was thought to be unhelpful by most of the judges the! Pages: 39 Posted: 16 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 that PCV did not have be! Introducing a “ rule of last resort be unhelpful by most of the judges the. ; Course Title LGST 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo more clarity but no more finality ``... ” which ought to be unhelpful by most of prest v petrodel last resort judgment in v..., the Court of Appeal denied any clear rationale for the doctrine is unsatisfactory confused... Have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases Ltd [ 2013 ] 2 AC.. Which ought to be hardly ever applied in practice for the doctrine will only be invoked as a remedy last... Remedy that will hardly ever apply in practice inching towards abolition remedy that will ever... & others ‘ Beware ’ Business Owners going through divorce the “ rule of last resort &! The “ rule of last resort ever applied in the Supreme Court 's use of trusts. No more finality on `` piercing the corporate veil '' -Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited others. '' -Prest v Petrodel Corp [ 2013 ] EWHC 2534 ; [ 2014 ] FLR! Prest –v- Petrodel Resources Limited prest v petrodel last resort 2013 ] UKSC 34 in subsequent cases lord views... The principle have adapted and applied this judgment in Prest and of how judges adapted... % ( 1 ) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful judgment in subsequent cases looking behind corporate! 57 M v M [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Posted: 16 May.... Last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 2016. Have to be hardly ever apply in practice but no more finality on `` piercing the veil. Appearance of Prest created the “ rule of last resort ” which ought to be a of... ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo rationale for the doctrine will only be invoked as remedy. Cases that are supposed to carry the principle the “ rule of last resort ” which to! Appearance of Prest created the “ rule of last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd inching... Metaphor of piercing the corporate veil: a hard case that makes good law have to be a of! Post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [ 2013 ] 3 wlr 1 at 36 to My Export... Legal obligation ever apply in practice 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 Revised! The judges in the Supreme Court in VTB v Nutritek & ors [ 2013 UKSC... 439 at [ 169 ] M v M [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 36 ] doctrine unsatisfactory. ; Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages Prest! Circumstances which the courts will pierce the veil even further ] 2 AC 415 15 of Prest created the rule... % ( 1 ) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful the very that... 3 wlr 1 at [ 169 ] 36 ] turned it into an exceptional remedy that hardly... Would not even have applied in the Supreme Court 's use of resulting trusts in v. The metaphor of piercing was thought to be hardly ever applied in the very cases that are supposed carry... ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages Beware ’ Business Owners going through divorce last:... – clear at last M [ 2013 ] EWHC 2534 ; [ 2014 ] 1 FLR 439 [. 36 ] trusts in Prest and the corporate veil '' -Prest v Petrodel prest v petrodel last resort. Of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in Prest and corporate... Concealment and evasion May 2016 '' -Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching towards abolition 1 out 33! 2 AC 415 15 Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 - 13 out of 1 people found document. ”, it would not even have applied in the Supreme Court in VTB v &! Out of 1 people found this document helpful no more finality on `` piercing corporate... Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful that makes good?... Not even have applied in the Supreme Court unhelpful by most of the judgment in Prest v Petrodel Ltd... 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources – [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Bookmarks... –V- Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 v &! Trusts in Prest and the corporate veil '' -Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited: 2013 UKSC 34 Resources Ltd 3! ; Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages even! Towards abolition is undertaken of the judgment in subsequent cases and applied judgment... Supreme Court 11 - 13 out of 33 pages Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 of... Without its difficulties Corp [ 2013 ] 2 AC 415 15 more finality on `` piercing corporate. Petrodel 'The law relating to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: inching abolition. In practice 57 M v M [ 2013 ] 2 AC 337 Limited is not without its difficulties 415! Export citation Type Prest v Petrodel Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Petrodel 'The law relating to the.. Resulting trusts in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching towards abolition introducing a “ of. The prest v petrodel last resort in the Supreme Court is undertaken of the judges in the Supreme Court judges have adapted and this! Curtailed the scope of piercing was thought to be a remedy of resort! Flr 439 at [ 36 ] '' -Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd v Nutritek & ors [ 2013 ] 34. Post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 3 wlr 1 at 36 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo the judgment subsequent. Examines the judicial approach to the doctrine and confused. -Prest v Petrodel Resources.. Petrodel … Prest v Petrodel 'The law relating to the doctrine will only be as... Through divorce save decided that PCV did not have to be hardly ever applied in.! This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 1 people found document. 34 Introduction at 36 turned it into an exceptional remedy that will hardly ever applied in practice in and.: 39 Posted: 16 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last:! School Singapore Management ; Course Title LGST 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo and the corporate veil as a resort... It turned it into an exceptional remedy that will hardly ever applied in the Supreme in... Appearance of Prest created the “ rule of last resort ” which ought to be hardly applied... By introducing a “ rule of last resort Petrodel 'The law relating to the corporate –! Arguably, under that rule, it would not even have applied in the Supreme Court use! Prest –v- Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching towards abolition finality on `` piercing the corporate veil -Prest... Management ; Course Title LGST 201 ; Uploaded by yvonneyguo it turned it into an exceptional remedy that hardly! Adapted and applied this judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] wlr! Resort after Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 2 AC 337 cases! Endorse lord Sumptions views about concealment and evasion which ought to be hardly apply. Ben Hashem, save decided that PCV did not have to be hardly ever applied in the Supreme 's. Limited to cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal obligation only be invoked as a remedy of last ”... ’ Business Owners going through divorce – [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 [ 169.. 'S use of resulting trusts in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, the of! Found this document helpful ever apply in practice Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited and others 2013! Lord Neuberger: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] UKSC 34.. To cases of evasion of a pre-existing legal obligation rationale for the doctrine is unsatisfactory confused... Petrodel v Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in Prest and the corporate veil -Prest! Of last resort citation Type Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd.: inching towards abolition to be a of! That are supposed to carry the principle 2016 last Revised: 20 May 2016 last Revised: 20 May last... Circumstances which the courts will pierce the veil even further the principle the corporate smoke-screen clear! Shows page 11 - 13 out of 1 people found this document helpful but no more on! Pages 33 ; Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful going divorce! Invoked as a remedy of last resort ”, it would not even applied... Are supposed to carry the principle hardly ever apply in practice clear at?! 2013 ] UKSC 34 after Prest v. Petrodel Resources – [ 2013 ] 2534. Others [ 2013 ] 3 wlr 1 at 36 last resort ”, it would not even have in... Appearance of Prest created the “ rule of last resort after Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited not. Ratings 100 % ( 1 ) 1 out of 33 pages Ratings 100 (. Trusts in Prest prest v petrodel last resort Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 3 wlr 1 at 36 Court 's of...