Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
A rare order for a child in utero
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow Harvard Law School; Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn 2023, Kettering NHS Trust applied for an anticipatory declaration for a child...
Stranded spouses: an overview
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4PB, author of A Practical Guide to Stranded Spouses in Family Law ProceedingsThis article provides an overview of the issues that often arise in cases...
Now is the time to reassess presumption f parental involvement in cases involving domestic abuse
Lea Levine, Paralegal at Stewarts and former independent domestic violence advisorIn this article, paralegal and former independent domestic violence advisor (“IDVA”) Lea Levine...
Hadkinson orders – applicability in financial remedy proceedings
Hassan Sarwar, Cornwall Street BarristersHassan Sarwar considers the development and usage of Hadkinson Orders in financial remedy proceedings.  The article provides a helpful overview of a...
View all articles
Authors

Prest: what the Supreme Court decided

Sep 29, 2018, 21:12 PM
Title : Prest: what the Supreme Court decided
Slug : Healing-SeptemberFLJ2013-1194
Meta Keywords : Prest, corporate veil, Matrimonial Causes Act
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Aug 22, 2013, 01:43 AM
Article ID : 103327

William Healing, Partner, Kingsley Napley LLP

The eagerly anticipated decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others [2013] UKSC 34, has produced a result not expected by many family lawyers: first that Mrs Prest would win and secondly,  by using the law of resulting trusts, to seek to achieve a fair result for her. This article looks at the judgment with particular emphasis for practitioners on the common law power to pierce the corporate veil and the guidance given on a matter of policy and principle in all divisions, not just for family law.

The full version of this article appears in the September 2013 issue of Family Law.    

 

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from