Sat06242017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

COMPANY: Dance of the corporate veil

05 April 2013  

Clare Arthurs and Alex Fox reflect on the Supreme Court judgment in Nutritek

The corporate veil has been in the limelight of late. The Court of Appeal in VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp [2012] kept it drawn in a commercial context; the Court of Appeal in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest [2012] refused to pierce it in the context of divorce proceedings, and the Supreme Court has recently handed down its judgment in VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp [2013]. This article examines where the line protecting the corporate veil is drawn.

 

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Re A Company [1985] BCLC 333

    Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433

    Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corpn v Stepanovs [2011] EWHC 333(Comm)

    Re Darby, ex p Brougham [1911] 1 KB 95

    Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby [2000] EWHC 1560 (Ch)

    Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935

    Hashem v Shayif & anor [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam)

    Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors v Prest & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395

    Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22

    VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808

    VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5