Continue reading "Trusts And Divorce: Piercing the corporate veil"
This post is only available to members.
Trusts And Divorce: Piercing the corporate veil
Prest shows that family judges must uphold company law when considering what constitutes the matrimonial pot, as James Copson discusses Where Family Division judges have fallen into error time and again has been their reliance on what Cumming-Bruce LJ referred to as ‘abundant authority’ in Nicholas that the veil can be lifted if there are …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- BJ v MJ (Financial Remedy: Overseas Trusts) [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam); [2012] WTLR 395
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503; [2007] WTLR 1151 CA
- Hashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam)
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24
- Nicholas v Nicholas [1984] FLR 285
- Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors v Prest & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395
- Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1
- White v White [2000] UKHL 54