Prest v Prest & Ors

Permission to appeal was granted on three issues arising from complex ancillary-relief proceedings involving companies: the circumstances in which the corporate veil might be pierced, the effect of Nigerian customary law on shareholding, and the permissibility of combining a lump-sum order with a property-transfer order. Fresh Nigerian evidence was admitted on the customary-law issue. Permission was refused on factual valuation, the wife’s budget, and the husband’s beneficial ownership of the former matrimonial home, because those matters depended on the trial judge’s assessment or had been insufficiently challenged below. The substantive appeal was not decided. Permission was made conditional on payment or security for specified costs and continuation of interim financial obligations.

Following complex ancillary-relief proceedings before Moylan J between Yasmin and Michael Prest, several companies connected with the husband were joined as interveners. The husband and the companies sought permission to appeal against judgments delivered on 4 October and 16 November, addressing the financial claims, company assets, valuation, costs and property transfer.

The Court of Appeal considered proposed grounds concerning piercing the corporate veil, Nigerian customary law and shareholding, the form of the financial order, valuation, the wife’s budget, and the beneficial ownership of the former matrimonial home. The central question was which grounds disclosed a sufficient point of substance to justify an appeal and whether fresh evidence should be admitted.

1. Permission granted in part. The proposed corporate-veil appeal raised a real point of substance concerning which of two streams of first-instance authority should govern when, and in what circumstances, the corporate veil may be pierced in ancillary-relief proceedings. Permission was granted for grounds falling under that issue.

2. Permission was granted for the Nigerian customary-law issue. The husband was permitted to adduce the relevant subsequent Nigerian judgment as fresh evidence, because it was said to address whether Nigerian customary law extended to the shareholding in Petrodel Upstream.

3. Permission was granted on whether the order made on 16 November could combine a lump-sum order with a property-transfer order where the transfer order was intended to secure implementation of the lump sum.

4. Permission was refused on the valuation of Petrodel and the wife’s budget. The valuation depended on the trial judge’s assessment of witnesses and surviving documents. The budget was a matter for the trial judge’s discretionary assessment.

5. Permission was refused on the alternative resulting-trust conclusion concerning the Warwick Avenue property. The husband had ample opportunity to challenge the wife’s assertion, had not filed opposing evidence or apparently sought an adjournment, and the companies had elected not to participate at important stages.

6. The permissions were conditional. The husband and companies had to pay or secure specified historic and assessed costs, secure the wife’s appeal costs, and continue specified interim financial obligations pending determination of the appeal. The periodical-payment obligation in paragraph 8 of the 16 November order was suspended to avoid double-counting.

The substantive appeal was not determined. Lord Justice Thorpe gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Patten agreeing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted on the corporate-veil, Nigerian customary-law, and form-of-order issues, subject to conditions. Permission was refused on valuation, the wife’s budget, and the resulting-trust conclusion. The substantive appeal remained to be determined.
• Principal Registry of the Family Division: Moylan J delivered a reserved judgment on 4 October and a further judgment settling the form of order on 16 November. The husband and connected companies sought permission to appeal.