Abstract:
Piercing the corporate veil has long been an unsettled area of law. It is likely to remain so despite the best efforts of the UK Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd to limit it to situations where assets were transferred to a company to evade existing obligations owed by the shareholder. In Singapore, its sphere of operation is clearly wider than that but, recent cases suggest, not wide enough to enable controllers of companies to step into a company’s shoes to claim its assets or enforce an action. This article examines the implications of not recognising “reverse veil piercing”.