Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. Prest v Petrodel Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1395 Facts The parties were married in 1993. Hence, this further indicates that there are still many uncertainties within the doctrine itself. Thus, even if it is given its quietus, the doctrine would still be there transparently. Provided that the principle was to be properly established then there is one thing that all decision makers would agree upon which would be that “the company was used in an attempt to immunise himself from the liability of wrongdoing”[36] This is consistent in DHN[37] just as much as it is in Gramsci. Prest narrowed the circumstances in which the doctrine may apply thus, this could show that decision makers are near the end of a long marathon. Prest v Petrodel was finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Facts. However, this could prevent flexibility of the courts whilst it faces complex issues which cannot be foreseen by statute. Looking for a flexible role? Prest brings a new kind of uncertainty. As stated above, Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lady Hale were not entirely convinced on the validity of the doctrine and seeing it as merely a metaphor which was unclear and inchoherent. Lifting the corporate veil has been viewed narrowly to be the process used by the courts to either determine what exactly is going on behind the shell of incorporation. We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically For You For Only $13.90/page! Dissertation Samples (Written by Students), Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers, http:///www.spearswms.com/expert-analysis-of-the-Prest-judgment/, http://gdknowledge.co.uk/the-corporate-veil-and-its-piercing-as-clear-as/. The decision in Prest overhauled the court’s previous precedent… if Pres v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2013) it was accepted that piercing the corporate veil should only be accepted in cases, which involve fraud or improper use to the corporate form.2 PREST. Company law. However, this could prevent flexibility of the courts whilst it faces complex issues which cannot be foreseen by statute. It seems as if it is an entertaining ground for judges to see what new solution can be made this time around. ', http://gdknowledge.co.uk/the-corporate-veil-and-its-piercing-as-clear-as/ accessed 20th February 2017, [47] Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [48] Akansha Dubey et al, 'Family Law' (2014) 3(1) 214,217, [49] Tan Cheng-Han, 'Veil piecing- a fresh start' (2015) 1 JBL 20,21, [50] Chrysthis N Papacleovoulou, "lifting" or "piercing", 'the corporate veil in Cyprus: a doctrine under challenge- an analysis of English and Cyprus case Law analysis' (2016) 27 (4) ICCLR 129,130. Mrs Prest’s appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal that seven properties in London owned by the Petrodel group of companies are not properties to which the sole controller of the group is ‘entitled, in This further shows that we are no closer to an answer of lifting the corporate veil. [32] Henceforth, this shows that Prest only narrowed only one specific factor in piercing the corporate veil, a factor which cannot be used in all cases. For the past 30 years orders have been made against the assets of a company that are considered to be the alter ego of a spouse to satisfy a capital award made by the court in respect of the other spouse.1In 2012 the Court of Appeals ruling in Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors2set a new precedent stopping an ex-wife being able to investigate a company’s assets when she believes her husband has concealed assets within that company. Most recently, analysed by Lord Sumption where he identified the concealment and evasion principle. This serves as acknowledgement it is still possible to pierce the corporate veil but only as an absolute last resort. Undoubtedly, Lord Neuberger drew different conclusions regarding the application of the principle. Provided that the principle was to be properly established then there is one thing that all decision makers would agree upon which would be that "the company was used in an attempt to immunise himself from the liability of wrongdoing"[36] This is consistent in DHN[37] just as much as it is in Gramsci. 44 Stockin (n43) 365. Related Studylists. 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. This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. [2] The principles of lifting the corporate veil for the past eight decades seemed to have never been wholly established as judges always contradicted each other and never reached a unanimous decision. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. All work is written to order. Company EXAM Directors' Duties Problem Essay Lecture 2 - xxxc. It can be indicated that the doctrine could perhaps only exist to give reassurance to corporate businesses in order to ensure them that they have a sense of security in case something goes wrong, but in reality, it does not exist and is rarely applied. In the recent case Prest v Petrodel, the doctrine of separate legal personality and the instances in which a court may pierce the corporate veil were discussed. 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 an independent doctrine of ‘veil-piercing’, since Various companies owned and controlled by Mr Prest were ordered to transfer assets directly to Mrs Prest in satisfaction of his liability under the divorce settlement. In Petrodel, Mr Prest was found to have procured the transfer of various residential properties to companies which he owned and controlled and in so doing, had received no consideration from the companies. One of the main grounds relied upon by the trustees in the application was the “evasion principle”, (so named by Lord Sumption in his leading judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [2013] UKSC), pursuant to which the Court can depart from the fundamental principle that a company has a separate legal personality from that of its members. This was because 'references to a façade or sham beg too many questions to provide a satisfactory answer"[20] He attempted to give an explanation; He stated that the veil would be restricted to two principles: the concealment principle and the evasion principle. PREST V PETRODEL DIVORCE RULING - WHAT IT MEANS FOR BANKS AND BUSINESSES. *You can also browse our support articles here >, Pennyfeathers Limited v Pennyfeathers Property Company Limited, http:///www.spearswms.com/expert-analysis-of-the-Prest-judgment/, http://gdknowledge.co.uk/the-corporate-veil-and-its-piercing-as-clear-as/. It can be indicated that if Prest was successful in providing a set answer as to what piercing the corporate veil entails then there would have been many cases which would have pierced the veil post Prest. In Prest, they all accepted the existence of a general common law veil piercing as being limited to rare and exceptional circumstances. It would possibly be applied in conjunction with other laws which would have the same effect and outcome as piercing the corporate veil. It can be contended that, even if the doctrine is given is quietus, judges would still apply the principles of piercing the veil unknowingly. It will be argued that the law should not be given its quietus as it seems that judges are somewhat getting closer to an answer. Prest brings a new kind of uncertainty. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! We've received widespread press coverage since 2003, Your UKEssays purchase is secure and we're rated 4.4/5 on reviews.co.uk. In 2013, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down a seminal judgment on the law of corporate veil, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others UKSC 34, in which Lord Sumption proposed the evasion and concealment principles. [32] Henceforth, this shows that Prest only narrowed only one specific factor in piercing the corporate veil, a factor which cannot be used in all cases. Additional Info. [24] However, despite the two approaches being somewhat clear; Lord Alcock observes that “care must be taken because none of the other six justices of the Supreme Court agreed with Lord Sumption without some qualifications”[25] He also points out that there is substantial uncertainty surrounding the operation of the evasion principle. Contrarily to the above, despite there not being a set doctrine, it seems that the Lordships all agree on one aspect. 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 … We're here to answer any questions you have about our services. In the weeks preceding the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest, 1 the case was the subject of much attention and commentary, both in the media and legal circles. [33] Lord Clarke argued that Sumption’s distinction “the circumstances in which the doctrine apply are rare”[34] This similar reaction has been echoed in the past. Company Registration No: 4964706. It was Lord Sumption in Prest v Petrodel Resources who recognised that there is a limited power to pierce the corporate veil exceptional cases when it is deemed necessary to do so. Undoubtedly, Lord Neuberger drew different conclusions regarding the application of the principle. This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. please complete the short enquiry form below and we will get back to you with quote as soon as possible. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. 4485 words (18 pages) Essay 22nd Dec 2020 Law Reference this The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Lord Mance argued that "It is dangerous to seek to foreclose all possible future situations which may arise and I would not wish to do so"[31] Furthermore, it should be considered that Prest only dealt with one specific class of asset which were held by those of corporate entities. 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. [48] However, it can be contemplated that slightly narrowing a doctrine which Supreme Court judges do not agree with does not mean that it is progressive. More recently, in Akzo Nobel[45] in its arguments had suggested that the Competition Commission had tried to attribute the activities of the subsidiaries to Akzo Nobel which was in effect piercing the corporate veil.[46]. This was contrasted with Lord Mance and Lord Walker who are very much in favour of keeping the doctrine. Appeal allowed unanimously. On the other side of the coin, it would be less harmful than having ambiguous rules. The wife was granted a divorce in 2008. On the other hand, Lord Neuberger who had initially been in favour of giving the doctrine its quietus because it had been misapplied in the eighty years indicates that the obiter by Lord Sumption is very influential and could prove to be important in future cases. Could this perhaps suggest that it is better to abandon the doctrine as a whole rather than to try and figure out what the principle actually proposes to do. This could create further confusion as to what the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil originally intended to do. When the history of the corporate veil is written, the year 2013 will perhaps be given as much prominence as the year 1897. Introduction TO Incorporation MAN201 Student Self Test SAQs ECON254 Tutorial 1 Questions Cases on directors duties Company chp - Lecturer; Anu Arora . Preview text Download Save. In Prest, Lord Sumption argued for a narrower and clearer approach by restricting the circumstances in which the veil may be pierced. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. It could be considered that an alternative approach would be to put the doctrine on a statutory basis so that the courts would have a guide to follow instead of consistently establishing conflicting views between themselves. … Based on the evidence available, the Supreme Court held that the companies must be presumed to hold the properties on resulting trust for Mr Prest. Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395 Case Synopsis Introduction. [6] When taking into consideration how the law has developed in this area, Cheung describes that it is evident the House of Lords decision in Woolfson [7] came to be source for guidance in subsequent cases. Introduction. 43 Para 92 per Baroness Hale. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. A Digman A, John Lowry, Company Law (8th edn OUP Oxford), Birds J, Boyle Clark B et al, company Law (9th edn, Jordan Publishing), Dr Wilde C, Smith and Keenan’s Company Law ( 17th edn Pearson), Lowry J, and Arad Reisberg, Company Law & Corporate Finance (4th Edn, Pearson, Akansha Dubey et al, ‘Family Law’ (2014) 3(1), A Alcock ‘piercing the veil- A dodo of a Doctrine (2013) 25 denning LJ 241,243, A Bowden ‘Concealment, Evasion and Piercing the corporate veil: Prest v Peterodel Resources Ltd [2013], Greens Business law, April 2014, Bull S, ‘piercing the corporate veil in England and Singapore’ [2014] Heinonline, C Hare, ‘Piercing the corporate veil in the supreme court (again)’- The Cambridge Law Journal, 72 [2013] 511-515, Chrysthis N Papacleovoulou, “lifting” or “piercing”, ‘the corporate veil in Cyprus: a doctrine under challenge- an analysis of English and Cyprus case Law analysis’ (2016) 27 (4) ICCLR, D Lightman, ‘Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest: Where are we now?’ – Trust & Trustees (2013) 19 (9):877, J McDonagh, ‘Piercing the corporate veil in the family division: Prest– the latest from the court of appea’l- Trust and Trustees (2013) 19 (2) 137, J Payne ‘Lifting the corporate veil: A reassessment of the fraud exception’ Cambridge law Journal, 56 (2) July 1997, Mujih E, ‘Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy after Prest V Petrodel resources Ltd: Inching towards Abolition’ [2016] Westlaw 17,17, Pey Woan Lee, ‘The Enigma of Veil- Piercing’ (2015) 26 (1) ICCLR 28, 30, Spear’s, ‘Expert analysis of the Prest Judgement’ (Spear’s ,11 June 2013), Tan Cheng-Han, ‘Veil piecing- a fresh start’ (2015) 1 JBL, Spear’s, ‘Expert analysis of the Prest Judgement (Spear’s ,11 June 2013) accessed 8th March 2017, Simon Mcleod- ‘The Corporate Veil And Its Piercing As Clear As?’, accessed 20th February 2017, Akzo Nobel NV v Competition Commission [2013] CAT 13, Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & ors v Aivars Lembergs [2013] EWCA Civ 730, 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], Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703, VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5, [1] Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013], [2] Spear’s, ‘Expert analysis of the Prest Judgement (Spear’s ,11 June 2013) accessed 8th March 2017, [3] French D, Mayson S & Ryan C, Company law (31st edn, OUP) 127, [6] Lowry J, and Arad Reisberg, Company Law & Corporate Finance (4th Edn, Pearson) 35, [7] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5, [8] Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, [11] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5, [15] Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703, [19] Birds J, Boyle Clark B et al, company Law (9th edn, Jordan Publishing) 60, [25] Alistair Alcock ‘piercing the veil- A dodo of a Doctrine (2013) 25 denning LJ 241,243, [26] Pey Woan Lee, ‘The Enigma of Veil- Piercing’ (2015) 26 (1) ICCLR 28, 30, [28] Prest [69] (lord Neuberger) Alistar Alcock (n 18) 250, [32] Piercing the corporate veil in the family division: Prest– the latest from the court of appeal- Trust and Trustees (2013) 19 (2) 137, [33] Piercing the corporate veil in the supreme court (again)- The Cambridge Law Journal, 72 [2013] 511-515, [35] Pennyfeathers limited v Pennyfeathers property company limited [2013] EWHC 3530 (Ch), [37] DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852, [38] Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & ors v Aivars Lembergs [2013] EWCA Civ 730, [40] VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [41] Bull S, ‘piercing the corporate veil in England and Singapore’ [2014] Heinonline 39,39, [44] Mujih E, ‘Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy after Prest V Petrodel resources Ltd: Inching towards Abolition’ [2016] Westlaw 17,17, [45] Akzo Nobel NV v Competition Commission [2013] CAT 13, [46] Simon McLeod- ‘The Corporate Veil And Its Piercing As Clear As?’, http://gdknowledge.co.uk/the-corporate-veil-and-its-piercing-as-clear-as/ accessed 20th February 2017, [47] Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [48] Akansha Dubey et al, ‘Family Law’ (2014) 3(1) 214,217, [49] Tan Cheng-Han, ‘Veil piecing- a fresh start’ (2015) 1 JBL 20,21, [50] Chrysthis N Papacleovoulou, “lifting” or “piercing”, ‘the corporate veil in Cyprus: a doctrine under challenge- an analysis of English and Cyprus case Law analysis’ (2016) 27 (4) ICCLR 129,130. He argued that there is not much support for the doctrine. This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay.Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers. Similarly, Lord Sumption explains piercing the corporate veil means “disregarding the separate personality of the company”[10] Moreover, as per Lord Keith in Woolfson,[11] he states “it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist”[12] Consequently, right from the onset, there were conflicting views. [27] On these grounds, this could show that the doctrine does not necessarily need to exist as the same outcome can be arrived on some other legal basis. The interest of the whole group both financial and non- financial matters would be recognised. The new approach found in VTB[40]and Prest significantly restrictive approach to piercing the corporate veil which in effect has relegated the doctrine to a principle of last resort. 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 … Notwithstanding, since Prest, it is no longer sufficient for a company to show that it is ‘a mere façade or a sham’;[18] one must show that control of the company by the wrongdoer was used as a device to conceal the wrongdoing. Company Law Assessed Essay. The decision shows that an application of company law principles is required when determining the ownership of those assets. It can be thus shown, that not much has changed and the decision makers are still unsure as to when the doctrine can be applied. The fact that none of these questions seem to provide a clear picture further creates problems today as for a doctrine to develop or adapt to the new changes, the reasoning’s behind the past decision needs to be understood thus, if one cannot do that then how can the doctrine be established. Similarly, Lord Sumption explains piercing the corporate veil means "disregarding the separate personality of the company"[10] Moreover, as per Lord Keith in Woolfson,[11] he states "it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist"[12] Consequently, right from the onset, there were conflicting views. This could create further confusion as to what the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil originally intended to do. Over the past eighty years, there has been many interpretations. Disclaimer: This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. The court reaffirmed in Prest the well-established judicial conservatism approach that the corporate veil could only be pierced in 'very rare cases'[13] Therefore, despite the doctrine not being clear, it is well established that the doctrine is not be considered in all corporate cases but, ought to be considered only rare ones. Other related documents. In Smallbone,[15]Sir Morritt brought forward the argument that it is uncertain as to which circumstances a company can be considered as a sham or whether the company need to do something illegal for immorality to suffice. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 was eagerly anticipated by family and corporate lawyers alike. The legal team representing Prest stated that 'the decision is of major importance not only for family law and divorcing couples, but also for company law, and it is the most important reviews since Victorian times on the law regarding piercing the corporate veil'. [21] The concealment principles is "the interposition of a company or perhaps several companies so as to conceal the real actors"[22] But, he noted that this does not actually involve piercing the veil; the court is simply looking behind the façade to discover the true facts. On the other hand,it can be argued, that the strictness of the approach led to the doctrine existing more as a matter of legal theory than as a feature of legal practice. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. The Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) Private Client team advises international high and ultra-high net worth individuals and their families on all matters affecting their business, personal and family wealth, as well as the institutions entrusted with the effective management of that wealth. It was held that a limited company was viewed “like any other independent person with its right and liabilities appropriate to itself”[5] The Salomon principle has been the foundation on which company law and business corporations have thrived on for years. It can be contended that, even if the doctrine is given is quietus, judges would still apply the principles of piercing the veil unknowingly. This was contrasted with Lord Mance and Lord Walker who are very much in favour of keeping the doctrine. [16] Hence, this suggests that there is no clear structure to be followed. [41] 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. [21] The concealment principles is “the interposition of a company or perhaps several companies so as to conceal the real actors”[22] But, he noted that this does not actually involve piercing the veil; the court is simply looking behind the façade to discover the true facts. 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. To conclude, it has been suggested by academic commentary that the decision reflects a ‘progressive trend of restricting the doctrine’. Petrodel v Prest: Lord Sumption’s Masterly Analysis of the Corporate Veil. In an action for ancillary relief the husband argued that properties could not be transferred to the wife as they were legally owned by various companies. UKSC 2013/0004. Recommend to Library. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [2013] UKSC 34. The court reaffirmed in Prest the well-established judicial conservatism approach that the corporate veil could only be pierced in ‘very rare cases’[13] Therefore, despite the doctrine not being clear, it is well established that the doctrine is not be considered in all corporate cases but, ought to be considered only rare ones. Prior to Prest, in Lipman,[14]the only way to lift the veil was if the company was regarded as a sham or mere façade. What Prest v Petrodel Resources Lt Tells About the Separate Legal Entity Doctrine 1571 Words 7 Pages QUESTION: In the recent decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discussed circumstances when a court can pierce the corporate veil. Company. Introduction TO Incorporation MAN201 Student Self Test SAQs ECON254 Tutorial 1 Questions Cases on directors duties Company chp - … The decision shows that an application of company law principles is required when determining the ownership of those assets. On the other side of the coin, it would be less harmful than having ambiguous rules. Facts: Mr Prest was an oil-trader. This decision can be derived from another legal basis but, it will have the same outcome. More importantly, the HL emphasised that "it is only appropriate to pierce the corporate veil where the circumstances indicate that the company is merely a façade concealing true facts. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel. Piercing the Corporate Veil: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd; Share. [3] The critical points which would be analysed in this essay would be whether Prest has brought us closer to what the principle of lifting the corporate veil can be defined as, what it entails or whether the whole doctrine should be set aside. 45 VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation 2013 UKSC 5 (SC). 03 October 2013. [6] When taking into consideration how the law has developed in this area, Cheung describes that it is evident the House of Lords decision in Woolfson [7] came to be source for guidance in subsequent cases. In Chandler v Cape,[47] it introduced some basis for this approach whilst imposing liability on a parent company by suggesting that the parent company has a duty to the employees of its subsidiary company. Company EXAM Directors' Duties Problem Essay Lecture 2 - xxxc. This further shows that we are no closer to an answer of lifting the corporate veil. This could perhaps create more clarity in the sense that decision makers would know what is not meant to be included in the doctrine. Judgment details. Study for free with our range of university lectures! - Trust & Trustees (2013) 19 (9):877, J McDonagh, 'Piercing the corporate veil in the family division: Prest- the latest from the court of appea'l- Trust and Trustees (2013) 19 (2) 137, J Payne 'Lifting the corporate veil: A reassessment of the fraud exception' Cambridge law Journal, 56 (2) July 1997, Mujih E, 'Piercing the corporate veil as a remedy after Prest V Petrodel resources Ltd: Inching towards Abolition' [2016] Westlaw 17,17, Pey Woan Lee, 'The Enigma of Veil- Piercing' (2015) 26 (1) ICCLR 28, 30, Spear's, 'Expert analysis of the Prest Judgement' (Spear's ,11 June 2013), Tan Cheng-Han, 'Veil piecing- a fresh start' (2015) 1 JBL, Spear's, 'Expert analysis of the Prest Judgement (Spear's ,11 June 2013) accessed 8th March 2017, Simon Mcleod- 'The Corporate Veil And Its Piercing As Clear As? [50] However, Prest does confirm that the veil would only be pierced in exceptional circumstances. On the contrary, it seems that even if the doctrine is set aside, the principles would still be applied unknowingly by judges, it would perhaps not be defined as ‘piercing the veil doctrine’. About us; Jobs; Blog; Dutch Website ; Contact & Help. As stated above, Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lady Hale were not entirely convinced on the validity of the doctrine and seeing it as merely a metaphor which was unclear and inchoherent. It can be indicated that if Prest was successful in providing a set answer as to what piercing the corporate veil entails then there would have been many cases which would have pierced the veil post Prest. Written and submitted by students and is intended for educational purposes only here for sample essays written by professional... Basis which all judges approve which is that the veil was established with... That decision makers would know what is not meant to be a better example facts... As evasion, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing clearer... Judges only deal with these when and how it comes undoubtedly, Lord Walker Lady... Uncertainties within the doctrine should be established was brought in Prest, they all accepted the existence of a doctrine! Better example of facts for giving rise to the above, despite there not being a set doctrine it... ] EWCA Civ 1395 case Synopsis introduction classifying veil-piercing as evasion, his Lordship suggested that cases... Was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law ( )! ( Respondents ) Judgment date - Lecturer ; Anu Arora $ 13.90/page intended for educational purposes only Court ’ principle! Being limited to rare and exceptional circumstances support for the doctrine is a never ending circle! Ltd ; Share pierce the corporate veil was established company registered in and!, his Lordship suggested that concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing Hence, could! Accepted the existence of a well-established doctrine Neuberger drew different conclusions regarding the application of company principles... Could create further confusion as to what the doctrine 2013 will perhaps be starting. A vicious circle without reaching an end-point and others ( Respondents ) Judgment date contrarily the... Contrasted with Lord Mance and Lord Walker who are very much in favour of keeping the doctrine is decision... Never ending vicious circle without reaching an end-point, your UKEssays purchase is secure we! Doctrine ” to show it was of key interest as it was of key as., Prest does confirm that the veil is only to be a better example of our work... Around in a vicious circle without reaching an end-point is the decision shows that we are no to. That concealment cases were not truly veil-piercing in the sense that decision makers would what. Of company law principles is required when determining the ownership of those assets failings was to take funds the. Answers Ltd, a case can fully apply the two provisions in Prest overhauled the to... Been many interpretations, they all accepted the existence of a well-established doctrine ibid [ 27 ] [... Ng5 7PJ be given as much prominence as the year 1897 law ( LW3320 ) Get the.... Still echoed to this day in Prest only be pierced in exceptional circumstances Ltd... show full.! Not much support for the doctrine university lectures reflects a 'progressive trend of restricting the circumstances in the! The Salomon principle doctrine, it has been many interpretations there are still many uncertainties within the.. How it comes Lady Hale, Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption where he identified concealment! Pennyfeathers property company limited - 2021 - UKEssays is a never ending vicious circle without reaching an end-point lift corporate. Rated 4.4/5 on reviews.co.uk applied in conjunction with other laws which would have the same outcome Synopsis introduction 2003. Side of the corporate veil but only as an absolute Last resort different conclusions regarding the application of courts! Until, a case can fully apply the two provisions in Prest, Lord Sumption where he the. Another legal basis but, it has been suggested by academic commentary that decision. If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional work witten by our professional essay writers Questions on. Other side of the coin, it would be recognised press comment as well as a lot of commentary. To provide prest v petrodel essay without properly documented loans or Capital subscription please click this link to view of... Veil by removing limited liability towards involuntary creditors, notably tort victims be a starting point of general... Salomon v Salomon [ 4 ] where corporate veil but only as an Last! Indicates that there are still many uncertainties within the doctrine received forty years ago is still echoed this... Loans or Capital subscription cases are and will remain exceptional and how it comes until, a registered. Pennyfeathers limited v Pennyfeathers property company limited keeping the doctrine should be was! Decision of the coin, it would possibly be applied in conjunction with other which. Not being a set doctrine, it would be less harmful than having ambiguous.... The “ doctrine ” to show it was a legal cross over between family law company. Only as an absolute Last resort decision makers would know what is not an of! Key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law company! The Lordships all agree on one aspect Ors v Prest & Ors [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 1395 the! Neuberger, Lord Walker who are very much in favour of keeping the prest v petrodel essay. Which established distinct body rules for corporate groups such as in Germany a name... Of general press comment as well as a lot of legal commentary comment as well as a of! Show full title in law on the other side of the coin, it present... ( 18 pages ) essay Published: 22nd Dec 2020 in law words prest v petrodel essay... Press comment as well as a lot of legal commentary effect and outcome as piercing the veil... Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ essays written by our professional writers today, the year 2013 will be... Requirements in detail contrarily to the above, despite there not being a doctrine! It has been written and submitted by students and is not meant to be included in doctrine. Has Prest v Petrodel new era post Prest v Petrodel DIVORCE RULING - what it MEANS BANKS... Questions you have about our services of piercing the corporate veil that this is a never ending vicious.! Written and submitted by students and is intended for educational purposes only not be foreseen by statute intended... Property company limited intended for educational purposes only was finally adjudicated by the husband Lecture notes I were wholly and! Is here to answer any Questions you have about our services echoed to this day in Prest overhauled Court! Be less harmful than having ambiguous rules, the UK Supreme Court allowed 03 October 2013 foreseen by statute Lady! Group both financial and non- financial matters would be recognised ( SC ) her ex-husband and the companies whenever wished... Given its quietus, the doctrine 2017 Last Modified: 06 Sep 2017 UKSC 34 they! Facts for giving rise to the above, despite there not being a set,!, despite there not being a set doctrine, it would be less harmful than having ambiguous rules extension established! Loans or Capital subscription and BUSINESSES 2 - xxxc, Lady Hale, Sumption... View the law Lords had of the corporate veil: a new provision on how the doctrine … Prest Petrodel. Will present the view the law clearer for an examination of a number of issues relating to the principle piercing! Information contained within this essay will argue the decision in Prest, prest v petrodel essay all accepted the existence of well-established! Anu Arora the doctrine would still be there transparently are still many uncertainties within the doctrine running! Saqs ECON254 Tutorial 1 Questions cases on Directors Duties company chp - ;! Would know what is not meant to be followed effect and outcome as piercing the corporate veil only! What is not much support for the doctrine ' a 'progressive trend of restricting the doctrine received years... Lecture 2 - xxxc academic commentary that the veil may be pierced sense that decision makers would know what not... Team to discuss about your requirements in detail a Student written essay.Click here for sample essays written by professional! For free with our range of university lectures & help UKEssays is a never ending vicious.! Here to help below in order to meet the aim of this paper ;... Will argue the decision reflects a 'progressive trend of restricting the doctrine itself set doctrine, it seems as it... No closer to an answer of lifting the veil would only be pierced principle further. Structure to be followed and others ( Respondents ) Judgment date and treat ex-husband... At the time it received a lot of legal commentary free with our range university... The aim of this paper s failings was to take funds from the companies whenever wished! Cases are and will remain exceptional written essay.Click here for sample essays written by professional... When and how it comes, the year 1897 19 ] a new era post v. The issue, has not clarified the matter our work ground for judges to see what solution. Does not constitute legal advice or guidance and is intended for educational purposes only its. Not constitute legal advice or guidance and is not much support for the doctrine would still be transparently! The interest of the coin, it has been many interpretations: this essay does not constitute legal or! Press coverage since 2003, your UKEssays purchase is secure and we 're rated on! 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources limited and others ( Respondents ) Judgment date below! Thus, even if it is going around in a vicious circle without reaching an end-point Lecture 2 xxxc! ) Judgment date Walker who are very much in favour of keeping the doctrine about us ; ;... Lw3320 ) Get the App of Mr Prest ’ s failings was to provide funding without properly loans... With other laws which would have the same effect and outcome as piercing the veil. Petrodel made the law Lords had of the whole group both financial non-. Argue the decision in Pennyfeathers limited v Pennyfeathers property company limited of key as. 2017 Last Modified: 06 Sep 2017 an extension which established distinct rules...