Nature of Corporate Veil-Piercing and Revitalization of the Evasion Principle

Abstract

<p>Although the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in <em>Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd</em> sought to clarify the scope of the common law doctrine of piercing of the corporate veil, there continues to be controversy and uncertainty surrounding the notion of veil-piercing, including continued scepticism on the import of the doctrine, as exemplified by the more recent UKSC decision of <em>Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd v Rossendale BC</em>). This article aims to provide clarity in this area of the law by: (1) setting out with greater precision the concept of veil-piercing; (2) analysing more closely the meaning and scope of the evasion principle for veil-piercing (and, in the course of doing so, showing that the evasion principle has a greater role to play than is commonly thought post-<em>Prest</em>); and (3) investigating with greater detail how the paradigm cases discussed in the context of veil-piercing can (or cannot) be resolved without veil-piercing (and, in doing so, critiquing the “alter ego” and “concealment” analyses that have been adopted by courts post-<em>Prest</em>).</p>