When is it appropriate for the courts to draw adverse inferences? Daniel Lightman & Emma Hargreaves report post-Prest
The decision of the Supreme Court in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun) was awaited with keen anticipation, as it had the potential radically to change the legal landscape for both family and company lawyers. In the weeks since the judgment was handed down, a flurry of articles have addressed, in particular, Lord Sumption’s treatment of the so-called doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and his interpretation of s 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). This article, however, focuses on another aspect of the decision: in what circumstances is it appropriate for the courts to draw adverse inferences?
Case summary
The facts of Prest are now well-known and accordingly are not set out in this article (see "A matter of trust" & "Law report"). In short, the dispute arose out of ancillary relief proceedings in which Moylan J ordered Mr Prest to make a lump sum payment
