Abstract:
The purpose of this article is to conduct a critical re assessment of the framework for corporate veil-piercing articulated by Lord Sumption in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (“Petrodel”) in the light of recent English and Singapore case law and, in particular, to interrogate the notion of veil-piercing as a remedy of last resort, as well as the concealment and evasion principles which demarcate the boundary lines of the veil-piercing doctrine. Moreover, three other important issues raised in the aftermath of Petrodel are discussed with a view towards clarifying the scope of veil-piercing: the single economic entity doctrine, statutory veil-piercing and the doctrine of corporate attribution. It is hoped that this analysis will enable the veil piercing doctrine to re-emerge with greater clarity, consistency and robustness in the limited situations where it is necessitated to tackle abuses of the corporate form.