A v A: FD 29 Jan 2007

Munby J referred to the robust approach which had always been adopted in the Family Division in seeing through sham arrangements designed to hide the ownership of assets of the marriage by vesting them in relatives or companies which were in reality holding them as their nominees. He warned against departing from fundamental legal principle: ‘In this sense, and to this limited extent, the typical case in the Family Division may differ from the typical case in (say) the Chancery Division. But what it is important to appreciate (and too often, I fear, is not appreciated at least in this division) is that the relevant legal principles which have to be applied are precisely the same in this division as in the other two divisions. There is not one law of ‘sham’ in the Chancery Division and another law of ‘sham’ in the Family Division. There is only one law of ‘sham’, to be applied equally in all three Divisions of the High Court, just as there is but one set of principles, again equally applicable in all three divisions, determining whether or not it is appropriate to ‘pierce the corporate veil”.
Munby J
[2007] EWHC 99 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 467, [2009] WTLR 1, [2007] Fam Law 791
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
CitedPrest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.253469