Piercing the corporate veil (English law)
A company normally has a legal personality separate from its owners. In Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34, the Supreme Court discussed a narrow English-law evasion principle: where a company controlled by a person is interposed to deliberately evade an existing obligation or deliberately frustrate its enforcement, a court may in limited circumstances disregard the company’s separate personality to prevent the advantage obtained. Looking behind a company to establish concealed facts is distinct from piercing its veil. Statutes can impose specific consequences separately; check the rule, jurisdiction and facts.
Worked example
A person already bound by a restrictive obligation interposes a controlled company to evade it. A court considers the applicable rights and remedies, including the narrow evasion principle if its conditions are met.
Common mistake
Assuming every improper act, insolvency or company debt automatically justifies disregarding separate personality, or treating all statutory personal liability as the same common-law doctrine.
Where it appears in your exams
| Qualification | Exam | Relationship | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACCA | LW (ENG) | Direct | September 2026–June 2027 |