Case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd - Report

Added on -2020-07-23

| 11 pages| 3548 words| 123 views

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday

Showing pages 1 to 4 of 11 pages

INTRODUCTION Corporate identity is the truth communicated by the law that an association is seen as areal substance which is not the same as its individuals. An association with such character is afree real nearness isolated from its speculators, officials, officers and producers. This isextensively known as the cover of consolidation. Separate Legal Personality (SLP) is the crucialstatute on which association law is introduced. Working up the establishment of the way a firm exists and limits, it is viewed as, perhaps,the most critical and persisting rule of corporate law. Contrastingly, regulate of "SLP" hasexperienced much turbulence genuinely and is a champion among the most indicted points ofview inside and across finished purviews. In any case, this rule, set up in the noteworthy case ofSalomon v Salomon, is still much overwhelming and is expectedly celebrated as forming thefocal point of the English association law and additionally of comprehensive business laworganization. The present report is based on the provided case of Prest v Petrodel resources ltdand others. This report will consider the case of Salomon v Salomon. Along with this, veillifting will be explained.MAIN BODY In the given case of the Salomon V Salomon as the default position of limited liability ofthe company was sperate personality of the firm which is clear by the court. Here is some limitedsituation in which the magistrate can stab the corporate veil. Salomon v Salomon was a well-established in the UK, a law that as because it has a distinct personality to that of its individualsand every such part can't be subject for the obligations of the organization past their underlyingmoney related commitment (Macey and Mitts, 2014). There is a various situation in which courtcan prepare “pierce the veil” in order to identify the member of the company who is responsiblefor company action in certain circumstance. The law here has been overflowing with clashingstandards and numerous reporters felt that the Supreme Court choice in Prest v Petrodel gave anexceptional opportunity to determine the "endless story of when the corporate veil can bepierced.
In accordance to the law the Salomon V Salomon has separate legal identity. As due tosimple things, case becomes complicated with many layers. Salomon has established his firmwith the 7 stakeholder along with his wife and kid (Jackson, 2015). He borrowed firm assets andborrowed more money which makes him suffer from the financial problem. In thiscircumstanced a situation take place in court who should pay first, unsecured creditors such asemployees, utility bills and or Salomon himself. The UK Court of Appeal was hostile to sematicand felt Salomon was a cheat and his organisation was a "sham". In any case, the House ofLord's court communicated that the association was legitimately set up, there was no blackmailand consequently, Mr. Salomon was a particular element from his association, his directorship,his shareholding and his rights as a secured leaser (Sellnow, Veil and Anthony, 2015).These are the principles which are applied in several cases. However, the principal ofseparate identity was also restated by Lightman J in Acatos and Hutcheson plc v Watson [1995]1 BCLC 218. He expressed that to consider the rule of partitioned personality must bemaintained unless there was a particular statutory arrangement of some other legally bindingterms or building up a precedent-based law standard in actuality (Yu and Krever, 2015). Considering the case of Salomon v Salomon, in the context of UK law, it can bepresented that business unit has a separate personality from its members. In accordance withsuch principle, members are not held accountable for the debt undertaken by business unit. Inother words, members of the company are not liable beyond their financial contribution.However, under some circumstances courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of corporateresponsibility. This aspect lays emphasis on finding the members of company who areaccountable for firm’s action in certain circumstances. Case of Prest v Petrodel and its judgment is highly prominent which in turn presents theaspects when corporate veil can be pierced. In this case, the main issue was faced by theSupreme Court in relation to maintaining the integrity of Salomon principle. Moreover, in thesituation of divorcing spouses and single man companies’ legal aspects cannot be undertaken forconcealing assets or avoiding liability in relation to the same. Facts present that divorcing couple,Mr and Mrs Prest owned matrimonial home (UK) and second home in Nevis (Prest v Petrodel,2018). In this, claim was made by Prest, as per Matrimonial Causes Acv (1973) by taking intoaccount section 23 and 24 for the purpose of ancillary relief over the offshore companies which

Found this document preview useful?

You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download
Become a Desklib member to get accesss

Students who viewed this