Prest V Petrodel at Debra Chaffin blog

Prest V Petrodel. yasmin aishatu mohammed prest (“wife”) sought ancillary relief under the matrimonial causes act 1973, alleging her husband's use of offshore companies to conceal property ownership. The supreme court reviewed the principles of piercing the corporate veil and held that it was only appropriate in limited circumstances of evasion or concealment. prest (appellant) v petrodel resources limited and others (respondents) judgment date 12 jun 2013 neutral. Despite court orders for disclosure, michael jenseabla prest (“husband”) and his companies failed to comply. learn about the supreme court decision in prest v petrodel resources ltd, a divorce case involving the piercing of the. the case of prest v petrodel [2013] uksc 34 involved a divorce settlement where the wife claimed ownership of properties held by two companies. the supreme court allowed the wife's appeal and ordered the transfer of seven properties owned by the husband's companies to her. the supreme court considered whether the court has power to order the transfer of properties.

prest (appellant) v petrodel resources limited and others (respondents) judgment date 12 jun 2013 neutral. yasmin aishatu mohammed prest (“wife”) sought ancillary relief under the matrimonial causes act 1973, alleging her husband's use of offshore companies to conceal property ownership. learn about the supreme court decision in prest v petrodel resources ltd, a divorce case involving the piercing of the. Despite court orders for disclosure, michael jenseabla prest (“husband”) and his companies failed to comply. The supreme court reviewed the principles of piercing the corporate veil and held that it was only appropriate in limited circumstances of evasion or concealment. the supreme court considered whether the court has power to order the transfer of properties. the supreme court allowed the wife's appeal and ordered the transfer of seven properties owned by the husband's companies to her. the case of prest v petrodel [2013] uksc 34 involved a divorce settlement where the wife claimed ownership of properties held by two companies.

[Case Law Company] ['lifting the corporate veil'] Prest v Petrodel

Prest V Petrodel prest (appellant) v petrodel resources limited and others (respondents) judgment date 12 jun 2013 neutral. The supreme court reviewed the principles of piercing the corporate veil and held that it was only appropriate in limited circumstances of evasion or concealment. the case of prest v petrodel [2013] uksc 34 involved a divorce settlement where the wife claimed ownership of properties held by two companies. prest (appellant) v petrodel resources limited and others (respondents) judgment date 12 jun 2013 neutral. learn about the supreme court decision in prest v petrodel resources ltd, a divorce case involving the piercing of the. Despite court orders for disclosure, michael jenseabla prest (“husband”) and his companies failed to comply. the supreme court considered whether the court has power to order the transfer of properties. the supreme court allowed the wife's appeal and ordered the transfer of seven properties owned by the husband's companies to her. yasmin aishatu mohammed prest (“wife”) sought ancillary relief under the matrimonial causes act 1973, alleging her husband's use of offshore companies to conceal property ownership.