Lifted veil to ascertain where control lay. Mr Prest had not been under an existing legal obligation that his companies had sought to frustrate or avoid so this evasion principle did not apply. ... – The corporate veil could be lifted/pierced; it was thought this could only happen if evasion was evident Three cases are highlighted: Adams v Cape Industries (1990), Chandler v Cape Plc (2012), and Prest v Petrodel Industries Ltd (2013) as well as important recent case development. Following Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest 2013, this would no longer be regarded as a piercing of the veil, but an application of agency principles. In my view, abuse of the corporate structure (is not a ground for lifting the veil), para 143. Image courtesy of Ann Schlutter Spitzer. Also see Lady Hale’s distinction in para 92. corporate veil could be lifted either on the alter ego ground or the sham/façade ground. The veil was lifted to grant an injunction against Horne and the new company. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship. Although the case of Prest v Petrodel gave rise to a resulting trust and the supreme court found that the veil could not be lifted under section 24 of the the matrimonial clause act 1973 in the facts of the case, the supreme court entered into detailed analysis contending that it has never existed in law any power to lift the corporate veil. The concept of the corporate veil dates back to the landmark decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd  AC 22, where the legal separation between a company and its shareholders was established.