The Enigma of Veil-Piercing
In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1, Lord Sumption narrowly confined veil-piercing at common law to those cases where a controller had used a company under his control to evade a pre-existing legal liability. This article argues against this approach as it is so narrow that it practical...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1519 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3471/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 3 WLR 1, Lord Sumption narrowly confined veil-piercing at common law to those cases where a controller had used a company under his control to evade a pre-existing legal liability. This article argues against this approach as it is so narrow that it practically abolished the jurisdiction. Instead, the jurisdiction should be preserved, and its exercise should be constrained by clearly articulated principles. |
|---|