||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 300 (Mar)
||Queen's Bench Division
Sir Oliver Popplewell
||Kelyn Bacon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
||Michael Roberts (instructed by Robert Davies Partnership, Newport) for the defendant.
||Claire Staddon (instructed by Burges Salmon) for GL Ltd.
||20 March 2002
Practice - Pre or post judgment relief - Freezing order - Corporate veil - Defendant owing Secretary of State judgment debt - Secretary of State believing defendant dissipating assets to a company - Secretary of State applying for freezing order against company - Whether court entitled to pierce corporate veil - Whether order to be granted.
The principles which applied to the piercing of the corporate veil were the same in interim proceedings as at a substantive trial, namely that the court was only entitled to lift the corporate veil if the company was used as a device or a faade to conceal the true facts of a situation and to avoid or conceal the liability of the individual who lay behind the company. The court so ruled refusing the Secretary of State's application for a freezing order against a company to which the Secretary of State believed that the defendant, a judgment debtor, had dissipated his assets.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary