Will the corporate veil be pierced?
The Supreme Court has handed down its ruling on the Prest v Petrodel Resources case, restoring the original decision for the companies to transfer various properties to Mrs Prest. This ruling means that, in a divorce, people will not be able to withhold their assets from their spouses just because they have previously transferred them into companies.
This ruling will severely limit the availability of this so-called ‘cheat’s charter’.
However, it is important to note that the reason used for the ruling was not the same as that used by the original trial judge. The Supreme Court specifically stated that they were not piercing the corporate veil in this case, and that this principle could only be used in extremely limited circumstances. They were also very firm in their view that family courts cannot simply give company assets to wives just because the sole owner and controller of the company is the husband…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
For companies with a year-end of 31 December, the new remuneration reporting requirements for directors of UK-incorporated listed companies will kick in from 1 January.
In Woodland v Essex County Council the Supreme Court reviewed the law on non-delegable duties of care and set out the criteria when a non-delegable duty arises.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why