Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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 articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

Prest and The Corporate Veil

Sep 29, 2018, 18:30 PM
Slug : prest-and-the-corporate-veil
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 29, 2012, 10:43 AM
Article ID : 100661

The Court of Appeal has given judgment in the case of Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and Others [2012] EWCA Civ 1395, FLR forthcoming, with a decision that many family lawyers will find disappointing.  At first instance Moylan J had made an order requiring the appellant companies to transfer to the wife several properties in London held by them.  Moylan J had found that the London properties were ‘property' to which the husband was ‘entitled, either in possession or reversion' within the meaning of s 24(1)(a) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and reasoned that the husband was ‘entitled' to the property because all the assets held within the companies were ‘effectively the husband's property'. 

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument making clear that the fact that the husband was a 100% (or close to) shareholder in the companies did not mean that the companies' property belonged beneficially to him.  Leading judgment was given by Rimer LJ, who emphasised that it is not open to Family Division judges to make an order against company-held property unless there exists on the facts of the case relevant impropriety justifying the piercing of the corporate veil. He asked the rhetorical question, ‘why should family justice be regarded as different from any other sort of justice?'. Patten LJ declared that the current practice of Family Division judges 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, must now cease.' 

Thorpe LJ, in his dissenting judgment, warned that the majority's decision gave ‘an open road and a fast car to the money maker who disapproves of the principles developed by the House of Lords that now govern the exercise of the judicial discretion in big money cases.'

For a full case summary see here.

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