Having unanimously allowed the appeal by an oil tycoon’s former wife and ordered him to hand over assets held by his companies, the Supreme Court has not ‘pierced the corporate veil’ as some reported but has clarified the treatment of company assets in divorce cases.

The case first came before Mr Justice Moylan in 2011, who awarded Yasmin Prest a lump sum of £17.5m. Finding that the husband’s companies were “effectively … the husband’s money box which he uses at will” and consequently he was ‘entitled’ to their assets for the purposes of divorce proceedings, the judge ordered Mr Prest to procure the transfer of several UK properties held by his companies to his wife in partial satisfaction of the lump sum order. He did so because although the properties were in the UK, the companies which held them were offshore. Consequently, while he could not effectively police an order for the transfer of shares, he could enforce an order for the transfer of the properties.

That ruling was overturned on appeal in October 2012 on the basis that as the companies are separate legal entities, their assets were sacrosanct. As Mr Prest was not ‘entitled’ to them, the court had no power to order their transfer in satisfaction of his obligations to his wife. The ruling divided the Court of Appeal bench two to one, with commercial judges Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Rimer finding in favour of the companies. Lord Justice Rimer stated that “the properties were part of the assets of, and belonged beneficially to, the companies that respectively controlled them” and consequently in the absence of dishonesty or fraud, the ‘corporate veil’ could not be pierced by the court in order to satisfy Mrs Prest’s award. Lord Justice Thorpe, the only Family Division judge sitting, warned in his dissenting judgment that if the law permitted Mr Prest to retain assets in this way “it defeats the Family Division judge’s overriding duty to achieve a fair result” and the decision presented “an open road and a fast car” to the economically powerful who seek to avoid their spouse’s claims on divorce.

The ruling represented a radical departure from previous principles in Family Law, described by Lord Justice Patten as “an approach to company owned assets … which amounts almost to a separate system of legal rules unaffected by the relevant principles of English property and company law”. A further appeal to the Supreme Court was essential to address this conflict between the Commercial and Family Courts.

In the Supreme Court, Lord Sumption reaffirmed that the separate legal personality of a company cannot be disregarded unless it was being abused for a purpose that was in some relevant respect improper.

Type

Insight

Locations

Jersey

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
2 Sep 2021 |

Duties of Trustees

The relationship of trustees to beneficiaries is viewed as fiduciary, meaning there are certain equi...

18 Aug 2021 |

Beneficial Owners and Controllers (BOC)

The aim of BOC is to drill-down to the identification of persons who are the beneficial owners and c...

30 Jul 2021 |

Fighting international fraud

First published in New Law Journal, July 2021. Appleby partners Anthony William and Jared Dann an...

Contributors: Jared Dann, Claire Corkish
27 Jul 2021 |

Fund Finance Update – Will Jersey’s new sustainable investment disclosure requirements aid ESG financing?

This article provides an overview of ESG, the hot topic of 2020 that is carrying on full steam throu...

Contributors: Daniel Healy
22 Jul 2021 |

Listing Variable Funding Notes (VFNs) on The International Stock Exchange

This article provides a summary of Appleby listing agent services in the Channel Islands, and also o...

1 Jul 2021 |

Saunders v Vautier where the beneficial class is not closed - the debate goes on...

The rule in Saunders v Vautier is familiar territory for trust lawyers.  In the modern world it is ...

17 Jun 2021 |

Solvency Statements under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 - Is it time to go paperless?

In April of this year, the Royal Court of Jersey considered the practicalities around the making of ...

Contributors: Kevin McQuillan
11 Jun 2021 |

“Offshore intelligence – Funds in demand” Appleby Podcast

We have recently produced a podcast focused on the Funds industry entitled “Offshore Intelligence ...

2 Jun 2021 |

Why use Jersey entities in restructurings?

As the extension of various forbearance measures and fiscal support packages continues in response t...

Contributors: Gemma Whale, Andrew Weaver
28 May 2021 |

Further updates to the JFSC’s AML Handbook

On 31 May 2021, the handbook for the prevention and detection of money laundering and the financing ...

Contributors: Gemma Whale