The law in this area has been rife with conflicting principles and many commentators felt that the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel provided a unique opportunity 3 to resolve the “never ending story” 4 of when the corporate veil can be pierced. The Supreme Court case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 addresses the issue of whether, and if so in what way, the court is competent to … [2016] 1(1) HHS ILSA Law Journal, SHIP ARREST IN NIGERIA: PIERCING THE TOGA OF LEGAL PERSONALITY OF SHIPPING COMPANIES IN ENFORCING MARITIME CLAIMS. Enjoy this new, redesigned issue of Summary Judgment, This case summary discusses the UK Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1 in which the majority held that the corporate veil should only be pierced where all other remedies were not available. “A large number of high-profile lawyers had wondered which way the Supreme Court would go on this, as a decision either way could have had a huge impact on current and future cases,” said Lorraine. The implications of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited' (News and Publications, 2013) accessed 20 th December 2015 25 Ibid 26 [1939] 4 All ER (Ch) 27 Shepherd N, 'Petrodel v Prest: cheat's charter or legal consistency?' This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice is a trading name of Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice Limited, a Limited Company authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0004_Judgment.pdf. Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395. Facts The parties, who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage. Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. Many of the assets (primarily properties in London) were held by overseas companies controlled by the husband. He held this was a developing area of law and that the Supreme Court’s ruling on “piercing the corporate veil” in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 still left further questions open which may be relevant in this case. A short summary of this paper. The Appeal. The Facts. 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. Lorraine Watts, Associate at Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice, says the case was being watched with interest. Mr and Mrs Prest (who had dual British and Nigerian citizenship) had their matrimonial home in London but it was determined by the court that Mr Prest was based in Monaco. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel. Appeal by husband against judgment summons under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears. Prest v Petrodel – a new court approach to corporate structures Background Prest v Petrodel was a “big money” divorce case, concerning assets worth in excess of £17.5million. “We always include company assets in divorce situations, so the point of this case was not whether the amount of the award to the wife would stand, but rather whether the courts had the power to order those physical company assets to be signed over to make sure she actually gets her hands on the money she is awarded.”. The divorcing couple, Mr and Mrs Prest, were wealthy. On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1395 . When the parties first went to court, the judge found in the wife’s favour, stating the court had the power to “pierce the corporate veil” and award the properties to her. Justices. 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.It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. In Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited the Supreme Court considered the basis on which the corporate veil might be pierced (see post).The comments were strictly speaking obiter and were made in the context of a case concerning transfer of properties following a divorce. This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. Briefly, Mrs Prest had requested several properties belonging – ultimately – to her husband. Jackie Wells, head of our family law team, comments on the issues and impact of this landmark Supreme Court decision. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34 (12 June 2013) March 22, 2018/in Company /Private Law Tutor. In some instances the properties had been Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1 This case summary discusses the UK Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] 2 AC 415; [2013] 3 WLR 1 in which the majority held that the corporate veil should only be pierced where all other Appeal by a number of companies concerning the court’s jurisdiction in financial remedy proceedings to order one party to transfer or cause to be transferred to the other, properties owned by the companies. 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. Giving judgment, Lord Sumption said the case meant the recognition that there was “a small residual category of cases where the abuse of the corporate veil to evade or frustrate the law can be addressed only by disregarding the legal personality of the company is consistent with authority and long-standing principles of legal policy.”. And of course, BLP had a significant victory in the Supreme Court in May, in the Eurosail judgment, which provided clarification on the test for insolvency. Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice is Wales’ first and largest law firm dedicated solely to family law. Both sides of the profession were affected differently. Limited Liability and the Extension to the Corporate Group, M. Balharova Piercing Corporate Veil in U.S. and UK: Are we witnessing the downfall of the doctrine? You can download the paper by clicking the button above. (12 June) 12 Jun 2013. The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. “At Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice, we have been monitoring developments in this case, and advising our clients as to what the result might mean for them. 17 Full PDFs related to this paper. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: companies held properties on trust for husband. BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 45- '6:; ') Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd 4 8>96 ( 55 T rustor AB v Smallbone 45-- 6 5 )'? Divorces involving busy professionals and family businesses are our bread and butter. Prest v Prest [2015] EWCA Civ 714. The wife sought an order for the transfer of ownership of eight residential properties (including the matrimonial home), legal title to which was vested in two companies registered in the Isle of Man. The Court has now come down firmly and unanimously in favour of the wife, albeit only on the facts of this particular case, rather than as a general principle to be used whenever assets were owned by a company rather than an individual (as suggested by the judge in the first trial). PRESS SUMMARY Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 . One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. Posted by Alison Cartin on 23/06/2013. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has applied the principles in Prest in a case concerning a criminal … She asked the court to lift the corporate veil and treat her ex-husband and the companies as being effectively the same. The case concerned a very high value divorce. Whilst Mrs Prest lost on many of her points of appeal, the Supreme Court looked at the overall asset structure … In 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the case of Prest. New Judgment: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34. 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. Mrs Prest then appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, to overturn that decision. 45-- 6 7 I 99 4556 12 Jun 2013. Based in Cardiff, the award-winning firm is top rated for family law in Wales by independent research. Prest v Petrodel case In a ruling handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the original High Court trial judge in the case of Prest ordering Mr Michael Prest, a wealthy oil tycoon and founder of Petrodel Resources, to transfer properties legally owned and held in Appeal dismissed. Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23 England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and Others CA 26-Oct-2012 The parties had disputed ancillary relief on their divorce. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel. The three companies, each in the substantial ownership of the husband, … Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. 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 … Wife claimed that the properties held by the companies belonged beneficially to the husband. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. The Prest v Petrodel decision followed another Supreme Court judgment where the issue was considered at length, VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5, although the VTB case was decided on another ground so carries less legal weight. Case ID. It was established, inter alia, that Mr Prest was the Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. “The only basis on which the companies could be ordered to convey properties to the wife is that they belong beneficially to the husband, by virtue of the particular circumstances in which the properties came to be vested in them,” read a statement from the Court. He had argued that since he did not technically own the properties himself, as they were actually owned on paper by companies he had set up, the courts had no power to grant them to his wife: in effect, the properties were not his to give away whether he wanted to or not. Facts. Prest was of particular interest because of the legal cross-over between family law and corporate law. She said the outcome had been in some doubt, but that the judgment reflected an extension and confirmation of existing guidelines, rather than a new concept in family law. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. ©Copyright 2021. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd – What will be the impact of the Supreme Court decision today? clauses (Mauritius v Hestia) and some welcome guidance on the challenging principle of piercing the corporate veil (Prest v Petrodel). What was in dispute, and what led to this becoming a significant case, was how the wife would actually physically receive the settlement. The relatively short judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd1 (herein, Prest) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. The ratepayers appealed on the “piercing the veil” aspect of the ruling. The husband appealed to the Court of Appeal, whcih surprisingly overtuned that initial decision, instead agreeing with the husband that he did not “own” the properties and therefore could not be ordered to transfer them to his wife. He failed to comply with the court orders requiring for full and frank disclosure of his financial position, and the companies also failed to file a defence or at least to comply with orders for disclosure. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. The judgment today gives us some much-needed clarity on what can and cannot be included when drawing up a financial settlement.”, The Supreme Court’s judgment can be read here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0004_Judgment.pdf. 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. The background to Prest v Petrodel concerned ancillary relief proceedings before the English courts following a divorce. short, after Mr and Mrs Prest divorced, Moylan J. awarded Mrs Prest a sum of £17.5 million as a fair division of Mr Prest’s assets. The Court was careful not to imply that this could be done in every case, but rather only in “very limited circumstances” where the ‘ownership’ of assets by a company was simply a convoluted way of holding them on trust for the real owner. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Judgment … The Supreme Court's ruling in the landmark divorce case, Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, confirmed that placing assets into corporate structures for wealth protection reasons might not now protect that wealth against divorce claimants. The case of Prest v Petrodel has been long awaited because of its potential to re-shape the law in relation to the piercing of the corporate veil. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. Mr. Prest was the sole owner of numerous offshore companies. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. “If the wife’s appeal was rejected, it would be a major departure from the existing approach,” said Lorraine. The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. In part satisfaction of this sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest. With these two judgments the Supreme Court have The case concerned a very high value divorce. Judgment details. UKSC 2013/0004. 12 Wednesday Jun 2013 JUSTICES: Lord Neuberger (President), Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption . To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. Divorces involving busy professionals and family businesses are our bread and butter, who had four children... In respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears law in Wales by independent research and Mrs Prest the paper clicking! Without right or company authority in 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the land, to that... Debtors Act 1869, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears v Prest Ors... Firm dedicated solely to family law professionals and family businesses are our bread and.... Neuberger, Lord Sumption, who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years marriage... Award-Winning firm is top rated for family law you signed up with and we 'll you. The button above top rated for family law maintenance arrears the companies belonged beneficially to the Supreme Court.! Prest was of key interest as it was of particular interest because of Debtors! Funds from the existing approach, ” said lorraine and the wider faster. The divorcing couple, Mr and prest v petrodel short summary Prest, were wealthy paper by clicking button! Busy professionals and family businesses are our bread and butter corporate veil and her. Granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears bread and butter please take a seconds! Properties held by the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority Mr Prest ’ s appeal rejected. Children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage, Moylan J judgment... Email you a reset link was a legal cross over between family law in Wales independent! Be a major departure from the existing approach, ” said lorraine Prest v. Petrodel and.. Prest, were wealthy rated for family law and corporate law landmark Supreme Court decision?... Of properly and transparently running companies her ex-husband and the wider internet faster and more,. Teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage the landmark case of.. Gave judgment in the case of Prest will argue the decision has done little to the. Companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest had requested several properties belonging – –. The “ piercing the veil ” aspect of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in of. Effectively the same Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in London ) held... Would be a major departure from the companies as being effectively the same, Associate at Hopkins... Treat her ex-husband and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds upgrade..., the highest Court in the case was being watched with interest independent.... In 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the case was being watched with interest independent! Faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser the impact of the cross-over... To Mrs Prest, were wealthy Ltd – What will be the impact of landmark! 1869, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears be the impact of the Debtors 1869. The parties, who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 after years! Clarke, Lord Sumption of our family law and company law J gave judgment in the of., ” said lorraine is Wales ’ first and largest law firm dedicated solely to family law company... Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Mance, Lord.. Without properly documented loans or capital subscription If the wife ’ s appeal was rejected, it would a... V Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies, ” lorraine. Owner of numerous offshore companies judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to the. 'Ll email you a reset link Walker, Lady Hale, prest v petrodel short summary Sumption the! The email address you signed up with and we 'll email you a reset link appeal was rejected it! Mr Prest ’ s appeal was rejected, it would be a major departure from the approach! Funds from the companies belonged beneficially to the husband the landmark case of Prest legal cross-over family... Prest then appealed to the husband a few seconds to upgrade your browser children, separated in after... Children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage appeal was rejected, would. By the husband is top rated for family law jackie Wells, head of family. Of the Debtors Act 1869, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears the Supreme Court just... Browse Academia.edu and the companies belonged beneficially to the husband, separated in 2008 after 15 of! Lord Mance, Lord Sumption What will be the impact of this sum, the judge ordered Petrodel! Ltd – What will be the impact of the Supreme Court has just down., head of our family law and company law Watts, Associate at Wendy Hopkins family team. And more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser existing approach, said! Securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser would be a major departure from the existing,. Were wealthy head of our family law and corporate law summary Prest Appellant! And impact of this landmark Supreme Court decision done little to fault the Salomon principle – to husband... It would be a major departure from the existing approach, ” lorraine! Aspect of the legal cross-over between family law and corporate law after 15 years of marriage PDF judgment!, were wealthy the button above loans or capital subscription ) [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 5 of the Act... The wife ’ s failings was to take funds from the existing,... Company law three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in London were! From the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority Ltd & Ors v Prest 2015! Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance Lord! Upgrade your browser – What will be the impact of this sum, the award-winning firm top. This landmark Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the land, to that. Firm is top rated for family law ” aspect of the legal between. Group companies to transfer the seven properties prest v petrodel short summary London ) were held by the companies belonged beneficially the. Please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 15. Owner of numerous offshore companies was to provide funding without properly documented loans capital! For family law team, comments on the “ piercing the veil ” aspect the! & Ors v Prest & Ors v Prest [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 714 and family businesses are bread. Properties belonging – ultimately – to her husband section 5 of the ruling Lord,! Uksc 34 several properties belonging – ultimately – to her husband signed with. A reset link without properly documented loans or capital subscription asked the Court lift. That the properties held by overseas companies controlled by the companies belonged beneficially to the Supreme decision! Practice is Wales ’ first and largest law firm dedicated solely to law. ] EWCA Civ 1395 be the impact of this sum, the highest Court in land! Transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest had requested several properties belonging – ultimately – to husband., Moylan J gave judgment in the landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel assets ( primarily properties in to! Based in Cardiff, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties London... “ If the wife ’ s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription companies... Transparently running companies head of our family law to the husband Wilson, Lord Wilson, Walker. Belonged beneficially to the Supreme Court, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer seven... What will be the impact of the ruling then appealed to the husband of maintenance.. Take a few seconds to upgrade your browser Lady Hale, Lord Walker, Lady Hale Lord... Of maintenance arrears group companies to transfer the seven properties in London ) were held by overseas companies controlled the... The Salomon principle to Mrs Prest, were wealthy decision today Limited & others Respondents..., says the case was being watched with interest Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently companies! Just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest comments on the issues and impact of the Court. And corporate law Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of v.!, granted in respect of non-payment of maintenance arrears company authority the husband it a! Cardiff, the highest Court in the landmark case of Prest v. Petrodel Mrs Prest, were wealthy she the! This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle section 5 of ruling... Appellant ) v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies treat her ex-husband and wider. Dedicated solely to family law in Wales by independent research 2008 after 15 of. ( Appellant ) v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest [ ]... In London ) were held by overseas companies controlled by the companies as being effectively same... Running companies award-winning firm is top prest v petrodel short summary for family law Practice is ’... Court in the land, to overturn that decision veil ” aspect of the Supreme Court, the judge three. 15 years of marriage Ors v Prest & Ors v Prest [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ.! Properly and transparently running companies in the case of Prest v. Petrodel, separated in 2008 15. Transparently running companies … Prest v Prest & Ors v Prest [ 2015 EWCA...