Court gives narrow interpretation to deemed consent and piercing the corporate veil

In Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Aivars Lembergs [2013] EWCA Civ 730, the Court of Appeal held that the controller of a shell company that had entered into a contract containing a jurisdiction clause was not deemed to have consented to submit to that jurisdiction himself.

The court also followed the recent rulings in VTB Capital and Prest v Petrodel to the effect that the fact that a party used a company it controlled as a façade would not automatically justify piercing the corporate veil. The veil is pierced only when the controller is ‘under an existing legal obligation… which he deliberately evades’.

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp chartered a number of vessels to offshore companies that were allegedly controlled by Aivars Lembergs and others. Gramsci alleged that these charterparties were part of a fraudulent scheme to charter the vessels at below-market rates and then sub-charter them at higher rates. The charterparties contained exclusive English jurisdiction clauses…

If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.

Sign in or Register to continue reading this article

Sign in


It's quick, easy and free!

It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.

Register now

Why register to The Lawyer


Industry insight

In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.


Market intelligence

Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.


Email newsletters

Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.

More relevant to you

To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.

Analysis from The Lawyer

  • Panel reviews

    Panel reviews 2014: The chosen ones

    Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all

  • training

    Accutrainee: Revolution postponed

    At the time of its launch Accutrainee was described as a revolutionary change to the training model. Has it proved to be so? Not really.

View more analysis from The Lawyer


One Bishops Square
E1 6AD

Turnover (£m): 1,234.30
No. of lawyers: 2,194 (UK 200)
Jurisdiction: UK
No. of offices: 11
No. of qualified lawyers: 369 (International 50)
No. of partners: 81