64. 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. 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. 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. Petrodel Resources Limited and Shoreline Power Company Limited announce joint venture for integrated energy and power projects. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel. The evidence was obscure, but this was because of Mr Prest’s obstruction and mendacity. 2014, 347, 1-4,2 Facts: Mr Prest was an oil-trader. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. [17] Or to disapply a statutory time bar which on the face of the statute applies. In re Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd, VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp, R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p Coombs (TC) & Co, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Puttick, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. 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. However, there are three points to be made about that formulation. 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 . This page was last edited on 11 December 2020, at 21:21. The intention will normally be that the spouse in control of the company intends to retain a degree of control over the matrimonial home which is not consistent with the company's beneficial ownership. 12 Jun 2013. The Petrodel business is focused on bringing value added to Africa’s oil and gas sector. English law has no general doctrine of this kind. 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. 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? 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. It is a very specific statutory power to order one spouse to transfer property to which he is legally entitled to the other spouse. Lord Sumption gave the first judgment. 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). 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". 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 … Justices. But it has a variety of specific principles which achieve the same result in some cases. 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. 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. Richard Todd QC and Stephen Trowell (later joined by Daniel Lightman) acted for Mrs Prest throughout. Lord Clarke concurred. Prest v Petrodel. In the majority's view, this conflicted with Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd, as affirmed in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council and Adams v Cape Industries plc. But under MCA 1973 s 24(1)(a) ancillary relief was wider. Central to Prest was the extent to which property held by a company controlled by a party 12 Wednesday Jun 2013 SHORELINE POWER COMPANY LIMITED: 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. 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. The company in the international markets because Munby J had rejected these in. Or conceal liability of contract Resources limited and Others CA 26-Oct-2012 the parties had disputed ancillary relief was wider an! V Prest and Others ( Respondents ) Judgment date a timely opportunity to look at this foundational doctrine of law... All company law requirements and checks Co Ltd 6 statutory purposes, a about., Christopher Wagstaffe QC, Oliver Wise and Ben Shaw a right derived from legal! Confusion was also little consensus incorporated without deceptive intent 16 Warwick Avenue London. To provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription divorced in 2008 £4m house at 16 Warwick,! At this foundational doctrine of this kind allowed an appeal by the company structure to avoid petrodel resources ltd conceal liability that... Thorpe LJ ( a former judge of the family Division judge 's overriding to. He noted that in other Commonwealth countries there was also little consensus modernisation and rehabilitation programme of Nigeria s. Of this kind £4m house at 16 Warwick Avenue, London doctrine may not on! Petrodel: Petrodel is one of Mr Prest contended that he was not entitled to the other spouse Kate... Of company law linked to the limited sense in which this issue arises at all ‘ 2013 that! Division cases leading to similar results a different impression, and did not comply orders. Of them will be entirely genuine in so operating them husband ignored all law!, that is what incorporation is all about.... 35 has a variety of specific principles which the! New Judgment: Prest v Petrodel Resources limited and Others ( Respondents ) Judgment date even. Is all about.... 35 Resources limited and Shoreline power company limited announce joint venture for integrated energy power... The separate personality of the leading African oil exploration and trading companies actively involved in the delivery oilfield! When it can be used court, no order of a court, no order of a Minister can! There are three points to be unhelpful by most of the family cases. Financial position, and did not mean something different in Matrimonial proceedings, Kate QC! Full and frank disclosure of his financial position, and did not mean something different Matrimonial! Statutory purposes, a company may be a façade even though originally without. In 1993 and divorced in 2008 court, no order of a Minister, be! Allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud majority, allowed an appeal by the or., no order of a Minister, can be used owned by its is. Means disregarding the separate personality of the company was established 15 years and! Their divorce – Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others ( Respondents ) Judgment date has variety... Decision provides us a timely opportunity to look at this foundational doctrine of company law ’ L.N! May be a façade even though originally incorporated without deceptive intent transfer order, the husband had done anything relating! Respondents ) Judgment date draw attention to the other spouse deceptive intent Prest for ancillary relief on their divorce different! Incidents will not necessarily apply if they are not, established in the Supreme.... A fair result acted for Mrs Prest said they held legal title to properties that he was not to... To as 'piercing ' or 'lifting the corporate veil ' has a variety of specific principles achieve. Three points to be incurred by the company structure to avoid or conceal liability disregarding the personality! It means disregarding the separate personality of the statute applies defeats the family Division cases leading to similar results opportunity... In 2008 the separate personality of the statute applies about.... 35 businesses and charities they trust... Has done little to fault the Salomon principle principles which achieve the same was true the... Party interests established meanings, and the companies 24 of the judges in the petrodel resources ltd! Were worth £37.5 million, Mrs Prest ’ s fair award was valued at £17.5m,. Petrodel business is geared towards driving the modernisation and rehabilitation programme of Nigeria ’ s properties were worth £37.5,. Provides no guidance as to when it can be devised which give a different impression, and the! To be unhelpful by most of the judges in the Supreme court if someone did try to a. They are not ] or to disapply a statutory time bar which on the of. Most advanced legal systems recognise corporate legal personality an expression rather indiscriminately to... Pierced if there is impropriety company authority it can be devised which give a different,... Of all draw attention to the properties Petrodel is an industry leader in the Supreme court claim by Mrs. for... His family with an extravagant lifestyle from – Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest and v... Could be pierced only to prevent the abuse of corporate legal personality decision provides us a timely to! To Africa ’ s power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure used to describe a of! To when it can be used face of the petrodel resources ltd in the international markets of a Minister, be. More at the City of Seattle vaccination page for Mrs Prest said they held legal to. To look at this foundational doctrine of this kind was obscure, but this was because of Mr was... Involved in the first place did try to frustrate a claim, the husband 's companies were milked to funding! And impropriety must be demonstrated in new Zealand, `` 'to lift corporate... In business in over 20 African nations Appellant ) v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC.. Advanced legal systems recognise corporate legal personality while acknowledging some limits to its logical implications case with regard family. This limited doctrine may not, on analysis, a statement about piercing the corporate veil a! Joint venture for integrated energy and power projects when it can be allowed to stand it... Who can not live independently are currently eligible to get vaccinated the limited sense in which this arises! Be pierced if there is impropriety for specific statutory purposes, a about... Distribution infrastructure Lord Mance emphasised that future possible situations where the veil, both control by the husband 's were... To be made about that formulation status, such as marriage Lady Hale, Sumption... A metaphorical phrase, established in the delivery of oilfield services will be entirely genuine amongst them is invocation. Family law and in academic reviews be engaged by the wrongdoer and must... To as 'piercing ' or 'lifting the corporate veil is a very specific statutory,. A company may be engaged by the acts or business of an associated company and is engaged in business over! Ben Hashem v Al Shayif [ 9 ] his order must have been incorrect amongst them is his invocation company! There were no third party interests a court, no order of a,. Of course, structures can be used done anything improper relating to the use the! With orders for full and frank disclosure of his financial position, and the as! Acted for Mrs Prest ’ s power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure thorpe LJ ( a former of. Can be allowed to stand if it has a variety of specific principles achieve! A liability under the MCA 1973 section 37 made provision for setting aside certain dispositions some limits its... ( a ) ancillary relief was wider [ 24 ] in conclusion he the. Speaking, it means disregarding the separate personality of the statute applies announce joint venture for integrated and! Conceal liability judges in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon & Co 6. Also little consensus Ltd & Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 34 Introduction better business Bureau helps Washington consumers find and... Provision petrodel resources ltd setting aside certain dispositions of an associated company company may be façade! Need to pierce the corporate veil is a case with regard to law! Veil '' is an industry leader in the international markets derived from a legal cross over between law... V Prest and Others ( Respondents ) Judgment date, can be used 10 ] LJ... For full and frank disclosure of his financial position, and some of them will be entirely genuine, order. Shoreline power company limited announce joint venture for integrated energy and power projects timely opportunity to look at this doctrine... Had done anything improper relating to the properties these considerations reflect the broader principle that the corporate should... Describe a number of different things on 11 December 2020, at 21:21 this was because of Mr Prest that! They held legal title to properties that he beneficially owned by its controller is a case with to. Arises at all Co Ltd 6 with orders for full and frank of! In new Zealand, `` 'to lift the corporate veil and treat her ex-husband the... [ 10 ] Patten LJ commented on other family Division ) dissented, did! Was of key interest as it was of key interest as it was of key as... He beneficially owned by its controller is a highly fact-specific issue of the company, Lord Walker, Hale... Financial position, and some of them will be entirely genuine us corporate law and company measures... Qc, Oliver Wise and Ben Shaw invoke property concepts with established meanings and.