Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
2013 · [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- In divorce proceedings the wife sought transfer of properties held by companies her husband controlled.
- Issue
- Could the court pierce the to treat the properties as the husband's?
- Held
- Not by piercing the veil. The Supreme Court held that piercing applies only where a person deliberately evades or frustrates an existing obligation by interposing a company he controls. But on the facts the companies held the properties on for the husband, so they could be transferred.
- Principle
- The veil may be pierced only under the evasion principle, and other doctrines such as and agency should be considered first.
- Why it matters
- It is the leading modern statement on veil-piercing.
Words and Latin in this note
- Lifting the corporate veil
- Looking behind a company to the people who control it. Courts do so only where a person deliberately evades an existing obligation through a company he controls (Prest v Petrodel), or where a statute says so. Open the note.
- Resulting trust
- A trust under which the beneficial interest goes back to the person who provided the property, because he is presumed not to have meant a gift, or because an express trust did not use up the whole interest. Open the note.
- Trust
- An arrangement in which a trustee holds property at law but must use it for beneficiaries, or for a charitable purpose. The beneficiaries have the equitable interest. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.