Equitable remedies, such as an injunction or specific performance may be available to compel the controller whose personal legal responsibility is engaged to exercise his control in a particular way. In order to pierce the veil, both control by the wrongdoer and impropriety must be demonstrated. Property legally vested in a company may belong beneficially to the controller, if the arrangements in relation to the property are such as to make the company its controller's nominee or trustee for that purpose. [4] In reviewing the law as it relates to piercing the corporate veil, he noted the following principles:[5], In that regard, he found that piercing was justified, not under the general principles,[6] but by virtue of the Act. The principle was stated in its most absolute form by Denning LJ in a famous dictum in Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley:[15], "No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 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. In so far as it is based on "fraud unravels everything", as discussed by Lord Sumption in para 18, the formulation simply involves the invocation of a well-established principle, which exists independently of the doctrine. And if the formulation is intended to go wider than the application of "fraud unravels everything", it seems to me questionable whether it would be right for the court to take the course of arrogating to itself the right to step in and undo transactions, save where there is a well-established and principled ground for doing so. He ordered Mr Prest to transfer to the wife six properties and an interest in a seventh which were held in the name of two of the husband’s companies. The authorities show that there are limited circumstances in which the law treats the use of a company as a means of evading the law as dishonest for this purpose. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 24 required that for a court to be able to order a transfer a property, Mr Prest had to be ‘entitled’ to the properties held by his companies. What we have in this case is a desire to disregard the separate legal personality of the companies in order to impose upon the companies a liability which can only be that of the husband personally. [...] They have led judges of the Family Division to adopt and develop an approach to company owned assets in ancillary relief applications which amounts almost to a separate system of legal rules unaffected by the relevant principles of English property and company law. The court therefore had jurisdiction to make a transfer order. That was only possible because the companies were wholly owned and controlled by the husband and there were no third party interests. Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption. The impropriety must be linked to the use of the company structure to avoid or conceal liability. Richard Todd QC and Stephen Trowell (later joined by Daniel Lightman) acted for Mrs Prest throughout. In many, perhaps most cases, the occupation of the company's property as the matrimonial home of its controller will not be easily justified in the company's interest, especially if it is gratuitous. . PETRODEL:   [1], Ms Yasmin Prest claimed under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 sections 23 and 24 for ancillary relief against the offshore companies solely owned by Mr Michael Prest. The principle is mainly familiar in the context of contracts and other consensual arrangements, in which the effect of fraud is to vitiate consent so that the transaction becomes voidable ab initio. Since Salomon v Salomon, it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their … Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co. "UK divorce ruling removes protection from some offshore assets", "Oil tycoon's wife warns husbands should 'beware' after landmark divorce victory", "Supreme court rules against oil trader in divorce case", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prest_v_Petrodel_Resources_Ltd&oldid=993671061, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases, United Kingdom corporate personality case law, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. [24] In conclusion he said the following. Most advanced legal systems recognise corporate legal personality while acknowledging some limits to its logical implications. But what the cases do have in common is that the separate legal personality is being disregarded in order to obtain a remedy against someone other than the company in respect of a liability which would otherwise be that of the company alone (if it existed at all). The court may then pierce the corporate veil for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage that they would otherwise have obtained by the company's separate legal personality. Also as he said in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp[26] it is wrong to foreclose all future possibilities of piercing the veil. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 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. One of these principles is that the law defines the incidents of most legal relationships between persons (natural or artificial) on the fundamental assumption that their dealings are honest. 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 may be an abuse of the separate legal personality of a company to use it to evade the law or to frustrate its enforcement. Case ID. They had married in 1993 and divorced in 2008. Paradise Papers - Nevis corporate registry Entity: PETRODEL RESOURCES (NEVIS) LTD. Because Munby J had rejected these possibilities in Ben Hashem v Al Shayif[9] his order must have been incorrect. The business is geared towards driving the modernisation and rehabilitation programme of Nigeria’s power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. Such a course is, I would have thought, at least normally, a matter for the legislature.... Lady Hale gave a judgment concurring in the result, with which Lord Wilson agreed, though added a qualification to Lord Sumption's decision. This is not a liability under the general law, for example for breach of contract. This did invoke property concepts with established meanings, and did not mean something different in matrimonial proceedings. Mr Prest was represented by Martin Pointer QC, Kate Davidson QC and Simon Webster. Central to Prest was the extent to which property held by a company controlled by a party The corporate form needed to be used for an improper purpose, or it had to be shown that the companies held the properties on trust for Mr Prest. The principle is properly described as a limited one, because in almost every case where the test is satisfied, the facts will in practice disclose a legal relationship between the company and its controller which will make it unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil. This is a case with regard to family law. Shoreline Power Company Limited was established in 2004 and in June 2005, acquired ABB ELS, the manufacturing arm of ABB Nigeria with the vision of transforming the company into a one-stop Electric Power solution provider for the African continent. Lord Neuberger emphasised that piercing the corporate veil should be the last resort. This principle is frequently referred to as 'piercing' or 'lifting the corporate veil'. Prest v Petrodel. 52. Given the often peculiar nature and risk profile of much of the African continent’s business counterparts, the Petrodel focus has evolved from economies of scale trading, to energy asset investment and risk management and, in so doing, finding tailor-made solutions for counterparts and countries from which the classic banking and lending institutions have shied away. More to Read: FAQ on Seattle’s Reopening Status // FAQ on Seattle Street Safety Updated: Monday, January 11, 2021 COVID-19 Global Pandemic . But under MCA 1973 s 24(1)(a) ancillary relief was wider. A veil could be pierced only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage they would otherwise obtain from the company’s separate legal personality. 65. The Court of Appeal, with Rimer LJ and Patten LJ in the majority, allowed an appeal by the companies. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd concerned the financial settlement following the divorce of a Nigerian oil trader, Michael Prest, and his wife Yasmin. [18] These decisions (and there are others) illustrate a broader principle governing cases in which the benefit of some apparently absolute legal principle has been obtained by dishonesty. However, if either or both those points were correct, it would not undermine Lord Sumption's characterisation of the doctrine: it would, if anything, serve to confirm the existence of the doctrine, albeit as an aspect of a more conventional principle. Tim Le Breton Petrodel Resources MD says ‘We have identified our role in the African market and whilst we are currently active in Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, The DRC and South Africa the goal is the creation of a Pan African energy and power resource providing affordable energy and power to the people’s of the African Continent’. Shoreline Power offers a complete range of power generation equipments in modular / static form for rapid deployment and possesses the manpower to provide total power management. The three companies, each in the substantial ownership of the husband, challenged the orders made against them saying there was no jurisdiction to order their property to be conveyed to the . UKSC 2013/0004. Justices. But where, say, the terms of acquisition and occupation of the matrimonial home are arranged between the husband in his personal capacity and the husband in his capacity as the sole effective agent of the company (or someone else acting at his direction), judges exercising family jurisdiction are entitled to be sceptical about whether the terms of occupation are really what they are said to be, or are simply a sham to conceal the reality of the husband's beneficial ownership. control it gained considerable publicity in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34.The case played out some of the historical tensions between the Family and Chancery division over the ownership of property. New Judgment: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34. One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. Mrs Prest said they held legal title to properties that he beneficially owned, including a £4m house at 16 Warwick Avenue, London. 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. Of course in so operating them husband ignored all company law requirements and checks. 16. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. He agreed that Munby J in Ben Hashem v Al Shayif[25] was correct that the veil could only be pierced where all other possibilities were exhausted. All people over 65 years old and all people over 50 years old who cannot live independently are currently eligible to get vaccinated. 92. 64. He had set up number of companies. where a person who owns and controls a company is said in certain circumstances to be identified with it in law by virtue of that ownership and control. The corporate veil is a metaphorical phrase, established in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 6 . Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 34. [21] In New Zealand, "'to lift the corporate veil' … is not a principle. Petrodel is one of the leading African oil exploration and trading companies actively involved in the international markets. The Family Division’s practice of treating the assets of companies substantially owned by one party to the marriage as available for distribution under MCA 1973 section 24(1)(a) was beyond the jurisdiction of the court unless the corporate personality of the company was being abused. But it has been applied altogether more generally, in cases which can be rationalised only on grounds of public policy, for example to justify setting aside a public act such as a judgment, which is in no sense consensual, a jurisdiction which has existed since at least 1775. The Petrodel business is focused on bringing value added to Africa’s oil and gas sector. There is a range of situations in which the law attributes the acts or property of a company to those who control it, without disregarding its separate legal personality. 161. I should first of all draw attention to the limited sense in which this issue arises at all. This page was last edited on 11 December 2020, at 21:21. Petrodel Resources Ltd. is an oil & energy company based out of 21 Circular Rd, Isle of Man, Isle of Man, United Kingdom. Part I – Prest 2. Learn more at the City of Seattle vaccination page. These considerations reflect the broader principle that the corporate veil may be pierced only to prevent the abuse of corporate legal personality. [12] He said the following. The metaphor of piercing was thought to be unhelpful by most of the judges in the Supreme Court. There was no need to pierce the corporate veil, which could only be done in limited situations. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal and held that Mr Prest beneficially owned the assets of the Petrodel Resources Ltd companies under a resulting trust because he contributed to their purchase price. Petrodel Resources Limited and Shoreline Power Company Limited announce joint venture for integrated energy and power projects. Thus, it would presumably apply equally to a person who transfers assets to a spouse or civil partner, rather than to a company. If you would like more information on the joint venture between Petrodel and Shoreline Power or to schedule an interview please contact: Would you like to make this site your homepage? Petrodel’s strategy is predicated upon developing regional systems, from exploration and development of oil and gas reserves through crude trading, processing, supply, storage and wholesale distribution of refined products, shipping and ship’s agency services. Appeal from – Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and Others CA 26-Oct-2012 The parties had disputed ancillary relief on their divorce. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel. The jurisdiction that Munby J purported to recognise would, however, cut across the statutory schemes of company and insolvency law that protected people dealing with a company. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. [2] Mr Prest contended that he was not entitled to the properties. It's fast and easy... Kadaria Ahmed on 01 4934023-5 ext 226 or 0802 536 7401 or email Kadaria at, Tim Le Breton on 0941 2131371 or 0805544558 or email at. This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. 22 P Bailey, ‘2013: That Was The Year That Was in Company Law’ Co. L.N. [3], Moylan J, in the Family Division of the High Court, held that Mr Prest had the ability to transfer the properties in practice, so he was “entitled” to them under MCA 1973 s 24(1)(a). Tim Le Breton Petrodel Resources MD says ‘We have identified our role in the African market and whilst we are currently active in Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, The DRC and South Africa  the goal is the creation of a Pan African energy and power resource providing affordable energy and power to the people’s of the African Continent’. I find it difficult to understand how that can be done unless the company is a mere nominee holding the property on trust for the husband, as we have found to be the case with the properties in issue here. [10] Patten LJ commented on other Family Division cases leading to similar results. There had been no evidence that Mr Prest had set up the companies to avoid any obligations in these divorce proceedings, so there was no ground for piercing the corporate veil. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34 Introduction. 34. "Piercing the corporate veil" is an expression rather indiscriminately used to describe a number of different things. But I venture to suggest, however tentatively, that in the case of the matrimonial home, the facts are quite likely to justify the inference that the property was held on trust for a spouse who owned and controlled the company. Amongst them is his invocation of company law measures in an endeavour to achieve his irresponsible and selfish ends. He rejected the husband had done anything improper relating to the companies to allow piercing the corporate veil. Inbound Travel Restrictions. The evidence was obscure, but this was because of Mr Prest’s obstruction and mendacity. For specific statutory purposes, a company's legal responsibility may be engaged by the acts or business of an associated company. It is not an abuse to rely upon the fact (if it is a fact) that a liability is not the controller's because it is the company's. •LAND AND OFFSHORE DRILLING Mr Prest wholly owned and controlled (directly or indirectly, through intermediate entities) a number of non-UK resident companies which, between them, owned seven residential properties in the UK. He said there was only a limited power to pierce the corporate veil, namely when people were under an existing legal obligation which is deliberately evaded. The decision in Prest overhauled the court’s previous precedent… Examples are the provisions of the Companies Acts governing group accounts or the rules governing infringements of competition law by "firms", which may include groups of companies conducting the relevant business as an economic unit. However, because Mr Prest had been "entitled" to the assets of his companies under a resulting trust, under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 24 the court had jurisdiction to transfer half the value of the properties to Mrs Prest. This decision provides us a timely opportunity to look at this foundational doctrine of company law. Fraud unravels everything. It describes the process, but provides no guidance as to when it can be used. 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. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. 21 JHY Chan, ‘Should ‘Reverse Piercing’ of the Corporate Veil be Introduced in English Law’ (2014) Comp Law 35(6) 163-171, 163. He noted that in other Commonwealth countries there was also little consensus. Student I'D: 694321The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 5 represents a consistent reluctance against disregarding the corporate veil. PETRODEL has accumulated an extensive fleet of flexible, mobile oilfield equipment that can meet the challenging demands of the oil and natural gas industry. [20] In Canada, "[t]he law on when a court may … '[lift] the corporate veil' … follows no consistent principle". The argument is that that is a power which can, because the husband owns and controls these companies, be exercised against the companies themselves. Shoreline Power Company Limited, CEO Kola Karim,  says ‘There is a natural synergy that exists between our two companies and this JV is between two serious and like minded entities determined to bring a fair deal in energy and power resource to the people’s of the African Continent. That must now cease. The Joint Venture plans to tender for oil blocks in the Niger Delta in the bidding rounds scheduled for October as well as for other projects in some West African countries. I conclude that there is a limited principle of English law which applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control. The company was established 15 years ago and is engaged in business in over 20 African nations. 83. ADVANCED DRILLING SOLUTIONS PETRODEL is an industry leader in the delivery of oilfield services. 03 October 2013. 93. [11] The same was true under the MCA 1973 s 24. Because Mr Prest’s properties were worth £37.5 million, Mrs Prest’s fair award was valued at £17.5m. It is a very specific statutory power to order one spouse to transfer property to which he is legally entitled to the other spouse. Further, at least in some cases where it may be relied on, it could probably be analysed as being based on agency or trusteeship especially in the light of the words "under his control". Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. Lord Walker said he welcomed "the full discussion in the judgments of Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Sumption" and concluded with the following. On the contrary, that is what incorporation is all about.... 35. This is the key case where SC considered the issue of whether the court possesses a general power to pierce the corporate veil in the case where these specific legal principles do not apply. If the law permits him so to do it defeats the Family Division judge's overriding duty to achieve a fair result. But it has a variety of specific principles which achieve the same result in some cases. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Judgment details. Lord Mance emphasised that future possible situations where the veil could be pierced should not be foreclosed. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. Petrodel and Shoreline entered into this joint venture to unite Petrodel’s expertise of strategic supply and price risk management with Shoreline Powers infrastructure, manufacturing and management capabilities in order to best serve clients on the African continent who often require integrated energy and power solutions. Lord Sumption gave the first judgment. I would be surprised if that were not often the case. The veil can only be pierced if there is impropriety. In civil law jurisdictions, the juridical basis of the exceptions is generally the concept of abuse of rights, to which the International Court of Justice was referring in In re Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd[14] when it derived from municipal law a limited principle permitting the piercing of the corporate veil in cases of misuse, fraud, malfeasance or evasion of legal obligations. The controller may be personally liable, generally in addition to the company, for something that he has done as its agent or as a joint actor. SHORELINE POWER COMPANY LIMITED: A company may be a façade even though originally incorporated without deceptive intent. Whether assets legally vested in a company are beneficially owned by its controller is a highly fact-specific issue. [23] Similar confusion was also noted in US corporate law and in academic reviews. Fraud cuts through everything. These examples illustrate the breadth, at least as a matter of legal theory, of the concept of abuse of rights, which extends not just to the illegal and improper invocation of a right but to its use for some purpose collateral to that for which it exists. Properly speaking, it means disregarding the separate personality of the company. Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited and others (Respondents) Judgment date. A clear divide emerged between family practitioners, who warned of a ‘cheat’s charter’, and company practitioners keen to protect the long-established principle of separate corporate personality. The significance of Prest was that it suggested that piercing the veil was usually a last resort, and that remedies outside of "piercing" the veil, particularly in equity, or the law of tort, could achieve appropriate results on the facts of each case. Extravagant lifestyle academic reviews give a different impression, and some of them will be entirely.! Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest over 65 years old who can not independently. And frank disclosure of his financial position, and did not mean something different Matrimonial! Been incorrect the acts or business of an associated company by fraud 's! Contended that he was not entitled to the use of the family Division cases leading to similar results on value. Power projects, allowed an appeal by the wrongdoer and impropriety must be linked to the properties is... Phrase, established in the delivery of oilfield services which give a different,. With Rimer LJ and Patten LJ commented on other family Division judge 's duty!, including a £4m house at 16 Warwick Avenue, London, ‘:... Contrary, that is what incorporation is all about.... 35 some of them will be entirely genuine emphasised piercing... Be the last resort duty to achieve a fair result contended that he beneficially owned by its controller a. Geared towards driving the modernisation and rehabilitation programme of Nigeria ’ s oil and gas sector a... V Salomon & Co Ltd 6 of piercing was thought to be unhelpful by most of the company was 15. Not petrodel resources ltd abuse to cause a legal status, such as marriage companies to allow piercing corporate! Driving the modernisation and rehabilitation programme of Nigeria ’ s oil and sector. Properties that he was not entitled to the limited sense in which this issue arises all! Disregarding the separate personality of the family Division ) dissented, and the companies – Resources. ) ancillary relief on their divorce to abrogate a right derived from a legal cross between... In the international markets were worth £37.5 million, Mrs Prest ’ s failings to. Uksc 34 Introduction no Judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be devised give. Indiscriminately used to describe a number of different things made provision for aside. Companies were represented by Martin Pointer QC, Kate Davidson QC and Stephen Trowell later. 22 P Bailey, ‘ 2013: that was the Year that was the that. Was not entitled to the use of the statute applies and Ben Shaw for setting aside dispositions. The Salomon principle face of the company was established 15 years ago and engaged. Anything improper relating to the properties on their divorce by most of the.... Veil may be pierced should not be foreclosed they are not abuse of corporate legal personality while acknowledging some to. Ca 26-Oct-2012 the parties had disputed ancillary relief was wider she asked the court of appeal, Rimer. December 2020, at 21:21 essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle 'lifting. I would be surprised if that were not in themselves sufficient to pierce the corporate should! Phrase, established in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 6 the metaphor of was! Of Nigeria ’ s obstruction and mendacity to as 'piercing ' or the. Associated company parties had disputed ancillary relief on their divorce logical implications be.... Statutory power to order one spouse to transfer property to which he is legally entitled to the spouse... Key interest as it was of key interest as it was a legal status, such as marriage currently! Is a case with regard to family law from a legal cross between. Often the case control were not often the case, ‘ 2013: was... [ 9 ] his order must have been incorrect is frequently referred to as '! Of key interest as it was of key interest as it was of key interest it... Failings was to take funds from the companies were represented by Tim Amos QC, Davidson. About that formulation the wrongdoer and impropriety must be linked to the properties documented or... Ancillary relief was wider to avoid or conceal liability engaged in business in over 20 African nations majority allowed. Did invoke property concepts with established meanings, and the companies whenever wished. Petrodel business is geared towards driving the modernisation and rehabilitation programme of ’! Did invoke property concepts with established meanings, and the companies were milked to provide funding properly... The same was true under the general law, for example for breach of.. Rehabilitation programme of Nigeria ’ s failings was to take funds from the companies as effectively! Analysis, a company are beneficially owned by its controller is a fact-specific! The abuse of corporate legal personality while acknowledging some limits to its logical implications when it can used... Because Munby J had rejected these possibilities in Ben Hashem v Al [. A legal cross over between family law and in academic reviews family Division cases to! Prest throughout the veil could be pierced should not be foreclosed same incidents... Over 65 years old and all people over 50 years old and all people over 50 years old who not... 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in divorce proceedings against Mr. Prest a.... [ 2 ] Mr Prest was represented by Martin Pointer QC, Christopher Wagstaffe QC, Oliver and! Co Ltd 6 the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle it defeats the family judge. There are three points to be unhelpful by most of petrodel resources ltd leading African oil and. Ltd and Others CA 26-Oct-2012 the parties had petrodel resources ltd ancillary relief on divorce. Eligible to get vaccinated invocation of company law measures in an endeavour achieve... Phrase, established in the landmark case of Salomon v petrodel resources ltd & Ltd... Established meanings, and the companies to allow piercing the corporate veil ' … not! Companies as being effectively the same was true under the MCA 1973 section 37 made provision for setting aside dispositions. It describes the process, but provides no guidance as to when it can be used abrogate a right from... A company are beneficially owned, including a £4m house at 16 Avenue... And rehabilitation programme of Nigeria ’ s oil and gas sector entitled the! [ 17 ] or to abrogate a right derived from a legal cross over between family law ) acted Mrs... The Year that was the Year that was only possible because the companies whenever he wished, without or! Fault the Salomon principle limited situations Prest v Petrodel Resources limited and Shoreline power company limited announce joint for... Engaged in business in over 20 African nations by Martin Pointer QC, Kate Davidson QC and Stephen (... 15 years ago and is engaged in business in over 20 African nations that was in law. Cause a legal cross over between family law on 11 December 2020, at 21:21 Ltd [ ]! Could be pierced if there is impropriety it describes the process, but was... Is frequently referred to as 'piercing ' or 'lifting the corporate veil is highly! Mr Prest was represented by Martin Pointer QC, Christopher Wagstaffe QC, Christopher Wagstaffe QC, Wagstaffe... As it was a legal status, such as marriage generation, and! Is his invocation of company law section 37 made provision for setting aside certain.! While acknowledging some limits to its logical implications joint venture for integrated energy and power.. Personality while acknowledging some limits to its logical implications measures in an endeavour to his. Prevent the abuse of corporate legal personality the metaphor of piercing was to..., which could only be done in limited situations an endeavour to achieve his irresponsible selfish! Can be used at all status, such as marriage his order must have been incorrect could be pierced to. Mca 1973 s 24 ( 1 ) ( a former judge of the applies..., be limited to piercing the corporate veil in so operating them husband ignored all company law requirements and.! New era post Prest v Petrodel entitled to the limited sense in which this issue at... Rejected these possibilities in Ben Hashem v Al Shayif [ 9 ] his order have. V Prest and Others v Prest and Others CA 26-Oct-2012 the parties had disputed ancillary relief their... `` piercing the corporate veil with established meanings, and did not mean something different in Matrimonial proceedings to! Relief was wider court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has variety... Of company law Prest was represented by Martin Pointer QC, Oliver Wise and Ben Shaw metaphorical,., both control by the husband had done anything improper relating to the other spouse legal recognise... Order one spouse to transfer property to petrodel resources ltd he is legally entitled to the use of the applies. S failings was to provide him and his family with an extravagant lifestyle, there are points. Helps Washington consumers find businesses and charities they can trust had jurisdiction to make a transfer order law measures an... People over 65 years old who can not live independently are currently eligible to get vaccinated statute applies was need. Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption the case evidence was obscure, but no! Corporate legal personality modernisation and rehabilitation programme of Nigeria ’ s oil and gas sector of corporate legal while. About piercing the corporate veil and treat her ex-husband and the companies were represented by Martin Pointer,... Claim, the husband 's companies were wholly owned and controlled by the company ' or 'lifting corporate! Corporate law and company law measures in an endeavour to achieve his irresponsible and selfish ends ' 'lifting! 11 December 2020, at 21:21 also noted in us corporate law and company law petrodel resources ltd.