This post is only available to members.
Commercial: To pierce or not to pierce? The Court of Appeal protects the corporate veil
Clare Arthurs assesses a recent challenge to corporate protection VTB’s original case was pleaded in deceit and unlawful means conspiracy. The judge overturned the permission VTB had obtained (ex parte) to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. The expression ‘Piercing the corporate veil’ is a neat turn of phrase, but what does it actually mean? …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 1588; [2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm)
- Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp v Stepanovs [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm)
- Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby [2000] EWHC 1560 (Ch); [2001] WTLR 825
- Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935
- Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam)
- Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832
- Re Darby ex p Brougham [1911] 1 KB 95
- Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1
- Trustor AB v Smallbone (no 2) [2001] EWHC 703 (Ch)
- VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 808; [2013] UKSC 5