CASE NOTE ON PEST VS. PRETODEL1Case note on Pest Vs. PretodelInstitutionDate
CASE NOTE ON PEST VS. PRETODEL2IntroductionThe ruling that will be covered in this case note is Pest vs. Pretodel Resources Limited. Inthe ruling, the Supreme court sought to determine the basis and instances that may lead to the corporate veil's piercing. The background of the case was conflicting in the transfer of property following a divorce. In deciding the case, the Court of Appeal's criminal division used principles Prest to the Rv vs. Sale 9 2013) EWCA Crim 1306. In 2011, Mr. Sale pleaded guilty to a corruption charge. He had offered hospitality and gifts to a Network Rail employee in exchange for high value contracts1. FactsMs. Prest had sought ancillary relief as provided in the matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 for companies owned by Michael Prest. Mrs. Prest explained that she had the legal titles/ documents to the properties, such as the Warwick Avenue house. Although they had been legallymarried since 1993, they separated in 2008.