The recent Supreme Court decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others (‘Prest’) has been... more The recent Supreme Court decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others (‘Prest’) has been celebrated by many as much-needed clarification to a fundamental area of English company law – corporate veil piercing. However, to take such a view is to be overoptimistic. The Supreme Court’s findings suffer from three key inadequacies: first, Lord Sumption’s Piercing/Lifting dichotomy introduces a problem of classification. Indeed, existing cases can be reasoned to engage both the evasion principle and the concealment principle simultaneously. Second, the majority’s finding that corporate veil piercing ought to be construed as a remedy of last resort is problematic: the existing authorities do not support such a view. Finally, the majority’s recognition that ‘rare and novel’ circumstances may warrant veil piercing despite the non-engagement of the evasion principle lodges a new thorn of uncertainty in the flesh: such a view brings up a flurry of conceptual confusions that this area can truly do without. This article opines that the best way forward would be to cull the problematic doctrine of corporate veil piercing. After all, the doctrine – which found its way into English case law on tenuous grounds – is not without viable alternatives. If English company law is to make progress with greater certainty, the English courts have to be resolute in its efforts.
London has established an increasingly powerful position as an arbitration hub. An oft-cited reas... more London has established an increasingly powerful position as an arbitration hub. An oft-cited reason for this lies in the English courts’ commitment to arbitral confidentiality. Indeed, English law recognizes the existense of arbitral confidentiality in several cases. This might provide some measure of assurance for commercial parties intent on keeping business secrets and sensitive information under wraps. However, this article intends to demonstrate why it would be a fatal mistake to assume that arbitral confidentiality is a guaranteed advantage in England.
The recent Supreme Court decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others (‘Prest’) has been... more The recent Supreme Court decision of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others (‘Prest’) has been celebrated by many as much-needed clarification to a fundamental area of English company law – corporate veil piercing. However, to take such a view is to be overoptimistic. The Supreme Court’s findings suffer from three key inadequacies: first, Lord Sumption’s Piercing/Lifting dichotomy introduces a problem of classification. Indeed, existing cases can be reasoned to engage both the evasion principle and the concealment principle simultaneously. Second, the majority’s finding that corporate veil piercing ought to be construed as a remedy of last resort is problematic: the existing authorities do not support such a view. Finally, the majority’s recognition that ‘rare and novel’ circumstances may warrant veil piercing despite the non-engagement of the evasion principle lodges a new thorn of uncertainty in the flesh: such a view brings up a flurry of conceptual confusions that this area can truly do without. This article opines that the best way forward would be to cull the problematic doctrine of corporate veil piercing. After all, the doctrine – which found its way into English case law on tenuous grounds – is not without viable alternatives. If English company law is to make progress with greater certainty, the English courts have to be resolute in its efforts.
London has established an increasingly powerful position as an arbitration hub. An oft-cited reas... more London has established an increasingly powerful position as an arbitration hub. An oft-cited reason for this lies in the English courts’ commitment to arbitral confidentiality. Indeed, English law recognizes the existense of arbitral confidentiality in several cases. This might provide some measure of assurance for commercial parties intent on keeping business secrets and sensitive information under wraps. However, this article intends to demonstrate why it would be a fatal mistake to assume that arbitral confidentiality is a guaranteed advantage in England.
Uploads
Papers by Adam Liew