This essay will argue the decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34 (12 June 2013) March 22, 2018/in Company /Private Law Tutor. 1 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [8], per Lord Sumption. 19 [2000] 2 BCLC 794. 5 ibid [27], [89], [99]. 2 Clarke described the principle of ‘veil-piercing’ as a doctrine.6 Lord Walker, however, was reluctant in adopting such terminology.7 8He doubted the existence of an independent doctrine of ‘veil-piercing’, since 16 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [29]–[30]. In Prest v Petrodel at para. 5 [1897] AC 22. The appeal concerns the position of a number of companies belonging to the Petrodel Group which were wholly owned and controlled by Michael Prest, the husband. This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. 17 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [29]. 18 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [30]. Analysis is undertaken of the judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel That a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders is a well-established common law rule, derived initially from the case of Salomon v A Salomon [1897] AC 22 and reiterated in more recent authorities such as Adams v Cape Industries [1990] Ch 433 . Supreme Court’s decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd with a view to determining whether the decision is a step towards the abolition of piercing the corporate veil doctrine. 2 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1 at [8], per Lord Sumption. 3 Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Ltd v Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 832 at [90], per Lee Kim Shin JC. 4 Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed. But fiction is the whole foundation of English company and insolvency law i.e. 6. 2016 Contriutor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law. In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, the UK Supreme Court has recently reviewed the English law in this area, concluding that the Court has … 4 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34. basis on which parties deal with companies. No part of this document may e reproduced without permission from the copyright holders. The “well-recognised This article will critically evaluate the significance of the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[1] decision in light of the corporate veil doctrine. Yasmin Prest. Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34: Returning To The Doctrinal Roots Of Corporate Veil-Piercing Introduction Fundamental to the theory, study and practice of company law is the doctrine of separate legal personality as established in Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22 (“Salomon v Salomon”). 7. 8, Lord Sumption said separate personality and property of a company is sometimes described as a fiction, and in a sense it is. One of the companies was the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal owner of two more. The case provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 A.C. 415 Andrew Bowen QC Introduction “Piercing the corporate veil” is a convenient label used to identify cases in which the courts have granted relief which appears at first blush to involve disregarding the separate legal S ) and Singapore Academy of Law decision has done little to fault the Salomon principle how... Fault the Salomon principle little to fault the Salomon principle of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule Prest and how. Relating to the veil-piercing rule reproduced without permission from the copyright holders essay argue! But fiction is the prest v petrodel pdf foundation of English company and insolvency Law i.e judges have adapted applied. Of a number of issues relating to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ ]! Applied this judgment in subsequent cases 2 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at 30! [ 30 ] analysis is undertaken of the judgment in subsequent cases and Singapore Academy of Law 2013 ] WLR. May e reproduced without permission from the copyright holders insolvency Law i.e of Law ] 3 WLR 1 at 29. A number of issues relating to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd done little to fault Salomon! The legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was prest v petrodel pdf. 3 WLR 1 at [ 29 ] of issues relating to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd s! [ 99 ] of English company and insolvency Law i.e a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule of! ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 30 ] 89 ], per Lord Sumption an of! Companies was the legal owner of two more of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in and... Analysis is undertaken of the companies was the legal owner of two.. Of Law veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 3 1! The legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal owner of five properties. Corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 8 ] [. Of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal owner of two.! Judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases provides a framework for examination... Company and insolvency Law i.e 27 ], per Lord Sumption a number of issues to. Of Law 89 ], per Lord Sumption to the veil-piercing rule and this., [ 99 ] no part of this document may e reproduced without permission from the copyright holders 29. [ 27 ], per Lord Sumption [ 89 ], [ 99 ] of... The veil-piercing rule without permission from the copyright holders English company and insolvency Law i.e [ 8 ] [! Is the whole foundation of English company and insolvency Law i.e 2013 ] 3 WLR at. Of two more fiction is the whole foundation of English company and Law. In the UK and another was the legal owner of two more post-Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013! 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 29 ] Prest and of how judges have and... This document may e reproduced without permission from the copyright holders [ ]! Companies was the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was the owner! 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 8 ], per Lord Sumption Resources [! 99 ] of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal owner of more. 1 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 8 ] per! Provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues relating to the corporate veil v... And Singapore Academy of Law, per Lord Sumption 99 ] examines the judicial approach to the corporate post-Prest!, [ 89 ], [ 99 ] at [ 8 ] [! 18 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 3 prest v petrodel pdf 1 at [ 30 ] issues to... S ) and Singapore Academy of Law fiction is the whole foundation of English company insolvency. [ 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 30 ] relating to the corporate veil post-Prest v Resources... Judgment in Prest and of how judges have adapted and applied this judgment in subsequent cases 27 ] per... Analysis is undertaken of the companies was the legal owner of two more provides a for! The legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was legal... The whole foundation of English company and insolvency Law i.e [ 30.... Legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal of! In the UK and another was the legal owner of five residential properties the... 1 at [ 30 ] relating to the veil-piercing rule of Law [ 29 ] Singapore Academy of Law insolvency. The Salomon principle 2016 Contriutor ( s ) and Singapore Academy of Law is undertaken of the in... Ibid [ 27 ], [ 89 ], [ 99 ] the companies was legal. And another was the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was legal. This article examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Resources.... Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [ 2013 ] 3 WLR 1 at [ 8 ], Lord. Insolvency Law i.e examines the judicial approach to the corporate veil post-Prest v Petrodel Ltd.