Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34

Court: Supreme Court

Facts: During divorce proceedings, Mrs. Prest sought to pierce the corporate veil to claim properties held by various companies, arguing they should be considered part of Mr. Prest’s personal assets.

Issue: Can the corporate veil be pierced to reveal assets held by companies during divorce proceedings, and should these assets be considered part of Mr. Prest’s personal assets?

Held: Claim dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the veil was not pierced as Mr. Prest was not evading a legal obligation, and assets were held on presumed resulting trust for him.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Sumption emphasized, "Piercing the veil is a residual remedy to prevent abuse where there is an existing legal obligation being evaded."

💡 Leveluplaw: The corporate veil can only be pierced to prevent abuse where there is an existing legal obligation being evaded, not merely to reveal assets or address non-compliance.