Dear Colleagues,

The UK Supreme Court has considered the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others [2013] UKSC 34
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0004_Judgment.pdf. The case was a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, and the gist of the argument was that the husband had sought to hide some of his properties by vesting them in companies which he controlled. The question was whether the companies could be ordered to transfer the properties to the wife.

The judgment of the Court surveys the case law on separate legal personality and what is thought to be the doctrine of "piercing", and offers a restricts view of the rare circumstances it which it may be possible.

On the appeal itself, the court holds that it is not necessary on the facts to "pierce" anything, as it was held possible to conclude that the properties were held on resulting trust (Lord Sumption calls it an "ordinary" resulting trust) for the husband by the companies.

Lord Sumption gives the main judgment (in what is becoming his characteristically frank tone), but there are interesting points made in the various short concurring speeches from the other Justices (Lord Neuberger offers some comparative reflections, for example).

Best wishes,
James

--
James Lee
Lecturer and Director of Careers
Academic Fellow of the Inner Temple
Birmingham Law School
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629
E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk<mailto:j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk><mailto:j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk>


Web: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/lee-james.aspx

Sent from my iPad