Abstract
The majority of commentary in the wake of Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd has focused on the Supreme Court’s discussion of a court’s jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil. This has overshadowed the Court’s decision to recognise a resulting trust, which achieved the same result as if the Court had pierced the corporate veil. The focus of this paper is on the Court’s recognition of a resulting trust. By assessing the position of key stakeholders affected by this decision, the author argues that any further application of Prest in New Zealand should be approached with caution.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
