The Court upheld an appeal against an order for the husband to procure the transfer to the wife of a property belonging to a company in which he held a 71% shareholding, the other 29% being held by his business associates. However, both members of the court suggested, obiter, that the result might have been different had it not been for the position of the minority shareholders.
Cumming-Bruce LJ thought that, in that situation: ‘the court does and will pierce the corporate veil and make an order which has the same effect as an order that would be made if the property was vested in the majority shareholder.’
Dillon LJ said: ‘if the company was a one-man company and the alter ego of the husband, I would have no difficulty in holding that there was power to order a transfer of the property.’
Judges:
Cumming-Bruce and Dillon LJJ
Citations:
[1984] FLR 285
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Prest 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 . .
Cited – Thomas v Thomas CA 2-May-1995
H was a wealthy businessman, but, as a member of Lloyds, he had been required to charge the family home to secure potential liabilities. Also, the company of which he was managing director had always paid out only smaller sums by way of dividends, . .
Cited – Re W (ex-parte orders) FD 2000
The circumstances in which ex parte relief is obtained in the Family Division are likely to vary very widely. Moreover, relief is often granted by the Division in circumstances which are very much removed from those in which ex parte relief will be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Company
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.223621
