YP v MP

YP v MP

The husband is both the effective owner and controller of the respondent companies; the assets held by the companies are, in substance, his property. The court has power under section 24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to make orders directly against such assets, even absent impropriety, where the spouse is the sole effective owner and controller and there are no third party interests. The husband's failure to provide full and frank disclosure justifies drawing adverse inferences as to the extent of his wealth.

Parties
Applicant: YP; First Respondent: MP; Second Respondent: Petrodel Resources Limited; Third Respondent: Petrodel Resources Nigeria Limited; Fourth Respondent: Petrodel Upstream Limited; Fifth Respondent: Vermont Petroleum Limited; Sixth Respondent: Elysium Diem Limited (England); Seventh Respondent: Petrodel Resources Nevis Limited; Eighth Respondent: Elysium Diem Limited Nevis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Wife awarded lump sum of £17.5 million; orders for transfer of specified properties and shares in part satisfaction; child maintenance and expenses ordered; further hearing to finalise orders and costs.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Beneficial Ownership, Disclosure Obligations, Trusts, Section 24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Family Law Company Law Ancillary Relief Piercing the Corporate Veil Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Obligations Trusts Section 24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YP

Applicant

MP

First Respondent

Petrodel Resources Limited

Second Respondent

Petrodel Resources Nigeria Limited

Third Respondent

Petrodel Upstream Limited

Fourth Respondent

Vermont Petroleum Limited

Fifth Respondent

Elysium Diem Limited (England)

Sixth Respondent

Petrodel Resources Nevis Limited

Seventh Respondent

Elysium Diem Limited Nevis

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Extent of husband's wealth and beneficial interest in companies
  2. 2 Whether court can make orders against assets held by companies controlled by husband
  3. 3 Whether corporate veil can be pierced absent impropriety

Ratio Decidendi

The husband is both the effective owner and controller of the respondent companies; the assets held by the companies are, in substance, his property. The court has power under section 24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to make orders directly against such assets, even absent impropriety, where the spouse is the sole effective owner and controller and there are no third party interests. The husband's failure to provide full and frank disclosure justifies drawing adverse inferences as to the extent of his wealth.

Court Disposition

Wife awarded lump sum of £17.5 million; orders for transfer of specified properties and shares in part satisfaction; child maintenance and expenses ordered; further hearing to finalise orders and costs.

Orders

  • Lump sum of £17.5 million to wife
  • Transfer of specified properties in England and Nevis to wife