Following the landmark decision of Prest v Petrodel Resourcs in 2013, it has been emphasized that it is indeed important to limit corporate veil piercing powers to very carefully defined circumstances. However, because the common law fails to clearly distinguish the circumstances under which corporate veil piercing may occur, there remains a lack of predictability in this area for those seeking justice. Furthermore, there are increased difficulties faced by victims of fraud committed by corporate groups when seeking redress, as frequently judges’ hands are tied by the need to respect the doctrines of separate legal personality and privity. It has been a much-debated topic as to whether this lack of responsibility and injustice in the law calls for development of new legal constructions to help victims achieve more practical and fairer outcomes. This paper evaluates and rejects the urgency call for development of new legal constructions and examines alternative avenues of the law that may achieve similar outcomes without requiring the corporate veil to be pierced. Keywords: Corporate Veil, Corporate Groups, Limited Liability.
Corresponding author. Charlotte Kouo: firstname.lastname@example.org
COPYRIGHT: © The UK Law and Society Association, 2016