Piercing the corporate veil: Prest v Petrodel Corp  UKSC 34
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others  UKSC 5  2 WLR 398 assumed that a doctrine permitting piercing of the corporate veil of a company existed, but decided that the doctrine could not permit a party to secure the imposition of a company’s contractual liability on those who controlled it.
Now the subject recurs a few weeks later in the decision of the UK Supreme Court on the matrimonial affairs of Mr and Mrs Prest, and the involvement of the companies controlled by Mr Prest. The companies owned the legal title to a substantial property portfolio. The trial judge in family proceedings ordered the transfer of some of those properties by Mr Prest to his wife in satisfaction of a lump-sum order. The Court of Appeal by a majority held that he had no power to do so.
Lord Sumption defined the bases on which the judge might have acted as (i) a power in the court to disregard the ownership of the properties by the companies; (ii) a power conferred by statute (the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) to effect the transfers; and (iii) a finding that the companies were not, but the husband was, the beneficial owner of the properties…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Ogier briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Ogier
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ogier
This judgment in the Court of Appeal considered an appeal on one part of the judgment of Lieutenant Bailiff Chadwick (the Judge) of December 2013.
The states approved the proposed Employment (Amendment No 8) (Jersey) Law 201- on 18 July 2014.