Thursday, 20 June 2013

Utopia Ltd - not so much G and S as UKSC

One of the least known of the Gilbert and Sullivan light operas is Utopia Ltd.  You can read a synopsis of the plot here - in fact to make sense of this post, you'll need to!

Utopia Ltd

So, it's all about avoiding legal consequences, you see.  The King of Utopia will be blown up by the constitutionally appointed Public Exploder if the constitutionally designated Tribunal, the Wise Men, instruct him to do so.  How does the King avoid this?  By incorporating himself as a Limited Liability Company, he has made himself immune to the existing powers of the law of his land.  The King can be blown up, but his acts are now no longer his but those of a limited stock company and that can merely be wound up, not blown up.  No more prospect of the law of his land delivering life changing ending consequences.

And so to family law, which is what this blog is about.  We've just had the Supreme Court adjudicate on Prest v. Petrodel.  You can find the judgment here:

Prest v. Petrodel

The facts are set out in paragraphs 11-15.  In essence, the Husband here was alleged to use a number of companies which he controlled as his private piggy bank.  When his marriage unravelled, his wife obtained an order for financial provision in English proceedings.  He failed to comply so she sought to enforce, at least in part, by forcing his companies to transfer to her title to seven valuable properties they owned in England and Wales.

Put it another way - the claim is that the Husband was using limited liability status to avoid having to comply with the orders of an English court.  Not so very different from the newly incorporated Utopians really.  The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 enables the Court to make orders transferring money and property from one spouse to the other.  As no one marries a company, a sort of virtual personality, only a real person, this excludes the property and money of a company from the court's direct control.  At first instance, the High Court was having none of it.  Moylan J seems to have decided that because the Husband had the power to make the companies part with their assets to satisfy the Court's judgment, he could order him to do exactly that.

Not so, decided the Supreme Court.  The companies owned the assets and they were legal persons in their own right.  They were not parties to the marriage and so the Divorce court had very little power over them.  Right enough, if they had been set up as a device to frustrate the court and nothing more, the Court would not allow that to frustrate the Court's order, but Lord Sumption said,

"there is a limited principle of English law which applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control. The court may then pierce the corporate veil for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage that they would otherwise have obtained by the company's separate legal personality."  (My emphasis.)

When the companies were formed, there was no existing financial order.  The Husband was not engaged in strategy to avoid complying with the court order at the time he formed the companies as they long pre-dated the marriage breakup.  They had been formed apparently to manage tax liabilities or something similar.

"Whatever the husband's reasons for organising things in that way, there is no evidence that he was seeking to avoid any obligation which is relevant in these proceedings."

So where did that leave the Wife?  Well on the face of things, the court could order the Husband simply to transfer the shares in the companies to her, or some of them at least.  This would be a property adjustment order under s.24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.  However, where companies are incorporated abroad, there is no guarantee that the foreign jurisdiction will enforce such an order against the Husband if he failed to comply.  In this case, it is very clear that compliance with court orders was not a major priority with this Husband!  He had conspicuously failed to comply with court orders to provide disclosure, as had the companies under his control.

However, the Court did find an alternative route to enforce its order.  As the companies acquired property, sold property and paid out money entirely at the Husband's behest, they were deemed to hold their assets on trust for the Husband.  A trustee holding property in England and Wales can be forced to comply with an order imposing an obligation on a beneficiary of the trust.  The companies owned seven properties in the UK, so they can be, and were made to transfer these to the Wife in part satisfaction of the £17.5m odd which she was entitled to under the order.

So what do we learn from this?

1.  You can get a court order against a company in divorce proceedings only where you can show that the only purpose for setting up the company and acquiring property through it was to defeat the court's jurisdiction.  Yes, I did mean to put two "onlys" in that sentence - they both count.
2.  You may still be able to lay your hands on the company's assets even where you can't satisfy 1 if you can show that it has acted effectively as a trustee for your ex, but complications will definitely arise where there are other share holders or creditors as their interests are separate from the ex and must be protected.
3.  Orders of English courts are commonly regarded as far more generous to the economically weaker party than orders from courts abroad, but there is the important matter of enforcement.  If the assets lie abroad, the other jurisdiction may not necessarily enforce the English order.  Half a loaf by consent may ultimately be better than no bread after a fight.
4.  Matrimonial litigation is no different from ordinary civil litigation in one key respect - the first and most essential question is, where's the money?  If you don't have a satisfactory answer to this question, there's no point in even starting court proceedings - they'll only make you poorer.

Blog Disclaimer: Nothing in blog should be construed as legal advice. If you require legal advice upon any family law related matter then you should instruct a solicitor. Any links to other blogs or web sites are provided for convenience only and Austin Kemp Solicitors cannot accept any responsibility for the contents of such linked blogs/sites.


  1. Well thats progress I suppose, it is certainly high time some authorities in divorce matters are firmly established to discourage secretion of assets belonging in the marriage. Bravo to her.

  2. Half a step forward, I'd say. It's quite fortunate that most wealthy spouses don't start planning for a divorce a couple of years before it happens. They could use some of these decisions to their advantage if they did.

  3. In Texas, victims are designated two years to file a personal injury lawsuit from the date of the incident. Keep in mind the longer you wait, the more you lose. Memory tends to fade as time passes, making your testimony and those of witnesses less reliable. You also run the risk of losing important evidence due to accidental misplacement or discarding. File when the details are still fresh in your mind and when evidence is still in your possession. Your personal injury attorney requires every single piece of information available to you to design a potent legal strategy against the defense.
    personal injury lawyer in austin

  4. Professionals in the career consulting industry rely on counseling, research, and marketing techniques to assist their clients in developing career options and industry alternatives that match their goals and objectives.

  5. Free Article Submission. Finally a way to keep track of all of the articles you have submitted. Article submission can be a daunting task when you are trying to do. One of the hardest things to do to promote your website is to build your link popularity. Article submission sites have become one of the best and most simple ways. Nice blog Primodels Review

  6. Great post!!Thanks for sharing it with us....really needed.At Sarah Bevan Family Lawyers you will get the skill and expertise available at some of the larger city firms but what you will not get are the inflated fees charged to cover the high city costs.Child Custody Lawyers Sydney

  7. I told my attorney, Valerie Houghton, that my ex was letting an older man molest our 13 year old son. She mostly ignored me. Furthermore, I was not permitted to discuss it with my son.

    There was a hearing about two weeks after I told Ms. Houghton about my son. My ex not only disclosed that she had hidden $130,000 worth of gold coins, but also agreed to divide them.

    I was in complete shock. Ms. Houghton never even said that it was a possibility. I never thought that I would see those coins again because my ex is GREEDY.

    We each got $25,000 worth. The remaining $80,000 went to my attorney to be held in trust.

    I fired Ms. Houghton after that hearing. She went on to represent my ex without telling me. I was subsequently cut out of my children's lives.

    I asked the judge to tell me why I could not contact my kids. He spent several minutes on the computer, but could not provide an answer of any kind.

    After the divorce was finalized, I checked Ms. Houghton's website. She listed the judge a personal reference and a former employer.

    My son recently turned 18, so I was able to see him. He confirmed that he had indeed been molested. The other 3 have also shown strong indications of being sexually abused, but I cannot confirm it because I have not seen them in almost 8 years.

    I told my son to go report it to the police. A week and a half later the judge filed an order on HIS OWN ACCORD. He ordered that I could only have supervised visitation with my ADULT son.

    I ended up making complaints against Ms. Houghton and the judge. I was then hacked, stalked, harassed, and even poisoned. All of my organs are now damaged, my testicles have atrophied, and the shape of my face has changed.

    Valerie says that she "lost a lot of business" because of my complaints. She also says that she "can do whatever [she] wants, whenever [she] wants."

    You can read my formal complaints here:

    You can see what the poisoning did here:

    I guess that now she is rebooting her business in Round Rock. Her new business is called "Your Family Dynamics, LLC"

    I hope that she is will stop assaulting people and sex trafficking children.

    My youngest son was just two years old. She just never cared about them.