?To what extent did Prest Petrodel improve the UK approach to Veil lifting

Abstract

Lord Sumption, while assessing the case of the Prest v Petrodel, claimed that there is a difference between Lifting and Piercing the veil, and this happened through two different principles (Evasion, Concealment) which this observation of his Lordship created an issue of classification. Where this will classify cases in which the courts are willing to Pierce the Veil or merely lifting the veil by some statuary remedies. His Lordship also claimed the Veil should be pierced by the court only if it is necessary to use as a remedy against any specific wrong action executed by a company. In other words, this principle can only be used for one purpose rather than all issues associated with a company, thus limiting the application. Therefore, under the decision made by Lord Sumption in the respective case, the principle of evasion can be applied only under legal liability, obligation, and restriction a person deliberately intends to elude that particular obligation. However, this thesis is conducted to analyse the decision of Lord Sumption provided in the case of Prest v. Petrodel. For this reason, different case laws, scholar’s publications, views of lawyers, and legislation are taken into consideration in this study to justify if the decision made by Lord Sumption has some uncertainty or it has provided clear meaning to the existing corporate law.