header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 June 2013
Issue: 7565 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice—Family proceedings—Ancillary relief

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun)

Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger P, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Sumption SCJJ, 12 Jun 2013

It is well established that the court might be justified in piercing the corporate veil if a company’s separate legal personality is being abused for the purpose of some relevant wrongdoing; however, s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 does not provide any wider jurisdiction to do so than the general law. It might however be possible in matrimonial proceedings to find that companies hold their properties on trust for a spouse, in particular circumstances.

Richard Todd QC, Daniel Lightman and Stephen Trowell (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the wife. Tim Amos QC, Oliver Wise, Ben Shaw and Amy Kisser (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell Ltd) for the companies.

The appeal arose out of proceedings for ancillary relief following a divorce, in respect of which a decree absolute

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll