Prest v Petrodel received a lot of publicity but an equally important case involving Akzo Nobel did not seem to garner the same interest from corporate lawyers although competition lawyers have understood the importance of this case which clearly illustrates the difficulties of the subject. Both sides of the profession were affected differently. In Prest v Petrodel the husband was a wealthy oil trader who had built up a portfolio of properties; all of which were in the names of various companies. In 2011, Moylan J gave judgment in the case of Prest. All rights reserved. The Supreme Court rejected arguments that case law decided in the Nineteenth Century should be cast aside in divorce cases. It added that this was likely to be the position in other cases where the main home is owned through a company. Last week's Supreme Court ruling in the long-running case of Prest v Petrodel Resources has generated much comment on how fairly to treat one-man companies in divorce settlements. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners.It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. One of those companies owned five residential properties in the UK, and another two more. Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702. Although the judge in the High Court, Mr Justice Moylan, said that the husband's conduct of the proceedings were ‘characterised by persistent obstruction, obfuscation and deceit’, he nevertheless found that Mr Prest was worth at least £37.5 million. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. In short, after Mr and Mrs Prest divorced, Moylan J. awarded Mrs Prest a sum of £17.5 million as a fair division of Mr Prest’s assets. The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. However there were limited circumstances where the corporate veil could be pierced where a company sought to evade an existing liability or legal obligation. Central to Prest was the extent to which property held by a company controlled by a party At first instance, Moylan J ordered Mr Prest to make, inter alia, a lump sum payment of £17.5 million to Mrs Prest. The Supreme Court ordered that seven disputed properties, owned by companies controlled by Mr Prest, be transferred to Mrs Prest in partial satisfaction of their £17.5 million divorce settlement. That lump sum has not yet been paid. The case provides a framework for an examination of a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule. The background to Prest v Petrodel concerned ancillary relief proceedings before the English courts following a divorce. This practice was brought into sharp focus in Petrodel v Prest. to the monumental decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd2 (Prest), case law recognized a horde of exceptions to the rule: these instances were, in the past, described interchangeably as the court ‘piercing’ or ‘lifting’ the corporate veil.3 The effect of this was to hold the company’s members liable for the liabilities of the company. The latest industry news, upcoming events and our views on topical stories and current affairs. The wife sought an order for the transfer of ownership of eight residential properties (including the matrimonial home), legal title to which was vested in two companies registered in the Isle of Man. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners.It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. They made it clear that a corporate body has its own separate legal entity which had to be respected. The outcome came as a pleasant surprise for family lawyers concerned that the case was going to place yet another barrier in the way of fair and enforceable divorce settlements. Prest v Petrodel received a lot of publicity but an equally important case involving Akzo Nobel did not seem to garner the same interest from corporate lawyers although competition lawyers have understood the importance of this case which clearly illustrates the difficulties of the subject. Another was to take funds from the companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority. In this case the Supreme Court decided that the companies did not have the beneficial ownership of the properties in their name because they belonged to Mr Prest. The decision is case specific, but it does highlight the crucial importance of setting up and running companies transparently, and with full corroborating documentation on ownership and intentions. Prest v Petrodel- the facts. short, after Mr and Mrs Prest divorced, Moylan J. awarded Mrs Prest a sum of £17.5 million as a fair division of Mr Prest’s assets. In partial satisfaction of this Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1395. For any further information, please contact Gareth Schofield. The couple fought a bitter and expensive divorce in the High Court, at the end of which the High Court found that Mr Prest should pay Mrs Prest a lump sum of £17.5 million. An unexpected error occured, please try again. The paper seeks to critically analyse the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest (Appellant) v PETRODEL Resources and others (respondent) [2013] UKSC 34. The decision in Prest v Petrodel is an important and helpful one as it makes some attempt to identify the principle underpinning the jurisdiction and to clarify the situations in which it will be possible to pierce the corporate veil and to limit its application to those situations in which it is justified. Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. Capital v Nutritek and, last week, Petrodel v Michael Prest. The value of the judgement was not in question, as the courts had already ruled the husband – a Nigerian oil tycoon – would have to pay his wife £17.5m, largely due to his conduct during the case, and he was not arguing over this. In Petrodel, The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. In Petrodel, Petrodel-v- Prest The latest word in company assets in financial remedies. The decision is highly important as it has upheld the integrity of the corporate veil. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mrs Prest’s appeal. The application of the doctrine is frequently … The case is at least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses. VTB was concerned with a different problem – the consequences of lifting the corporate veil, but approved (with one exception that is irrelevant here) Munby, J’s six principles that set out when a court is entitled to lift the corporate veil. If you would like to speak to an advisor, please contact James Copson, partner at Withers LLP, on James.Copson@withersworldwide.com or +44 (0)20 7597 6044. On 12th June this year the Supreme Court gave its decision in the case of Petrodel v Prest [2013] UKSC 34, a case with significant implications for divorce and company law. In part satisfaction of this sum, the judge ordered three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven properties in question to Mrs Prest. It was of key interest as it was a legal cross over between family law and company law. Court) and Petrodel, to which readers may refer for an account of the facts and the background. You’ll find all the ways our solicitors can support you here. Mr Prest had failed to disclose his assets fully. Accordingly, from the limited facts available and by drawing adverse inferences from the lack of cooperation of the husband the Supreme Court decided that he, not the companies, had provided the funds for the property purchases and therefore he was their true owner. It also highlights the importance that companies caught in divorce crossfire set out their case fully and cooperatively in order to ensure that final awards are not made that they might regret. It was established, inter alia, that Mr Prest was the These non-essential cookies do not identify any person and are used only to track how our website is used so we can make improvements to your experience. Withers' family, contentious trust, corporate and wealth planning client teams can answer any questions you may have in relation to divorce, the structuring of assets through trust/corporate structures, wealth protection and tax planning. Lord Neuberger, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption . The “well-recognised Same journey, different carriage – How to separate well, Parental alienation and its long term impact. Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest. The husband was entitled to the property and hence orders could be made against that property and they were transferred to the wife. Part I – Prest 2. Those names might be familiar to some of those reading theses notes as the actions of multi-millionaire oil tycoon Mr Prest received the attention of the national media between 2008 and 2011. Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) [2001] EWHC 703. Piercing The Corporate Veil: Prest Vs Petrodel Resources The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark judgement in favour of Mrs Prest in high profile matrimonial dispute. The relatively short judgment in the United Kingdom Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd1 (herein, Prest) has garnered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Prest v Petrodel Ltd . The highly anticipated Supreme Court decision was handed down on 12 June 2013 in Prest v Petrodel Resources & others [2013] UKSC 34.The outcome came as a pleasant surprise for family lawyers concerned that the case was going to place yet another barrier in the way of fair and enforceable divorce settlements. Prest was of particular interest because of the legal cross-over between family law and corporate law. In those proceedings Mrs Prest sought orders against those companies to transfer properties held by them to her to settle part of the lump sum due. Mr and Mrs Prest married in 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. Piercing the corporate veil: a new era post Prest v Petrodel That a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders is a well-established common law rule, derived initially from the case of Salomon v A Salomon [1897] AC 22 and reiterated in more recent authorities such as Adams v Cape Industries [1990] Ch 433 . In the weeks preceding the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest, 1 the case was the subject of much attention and commentary, both in the media and legal circles. The relatively short and significant judgment in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd has gathered vociferous interest from academics and practitioners. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd emphasises the importance of properly and transparently running companies. The case is at least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses. VTB was concerned with a different problem – the consequences of lifting the corporate veil, but approved (with one exception that is irrelevant here) Munby, J’s six principles that set out when a court is entitled to lift the corporate veil. One of Mr Prest’s failings was to provide funding without properly documented loans or capital subscription. Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest: a triumph for common sense. As ever the case does raise certain questions – do the principles apply where the shareholding has come about for a perfectly legitimate reason?, what happens if the shares and assets are held abroad in jurisdictions not keen to assist the UK?, and what if there are other shareholders who resist transfer? Supreme Court’s decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd with a view to determining whether the decision is a step towards the abolition of piercing the corporate veil doctrine. However, there are still circumstances in which the courts will allow a request to lift the veil. JUDGMENT GIVEN ON . We know that COVID-19 has led to an intensified... We are pleased to be hosting 'How do you... A residential tower block in Ipswich was undergoing a... Is mediation for everybody and when is the best... © 2021 Clarke Willmott LLP. The case contains an impressive analysis of the case law Prest v Petrodel: The corporate veil has not been pierced, but I can read the word ‘fairness’ through it 14th June, 2013 The long awaited decision in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others has today been seen as a victory for fairness and common sense in cases where the reality of the nature of assets are in question. The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others [2013] UKSC 34 has been a battle, through the English High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, between the principles of corporate integrity on the one hand and fairness on divorce on the other, as much as between Mr and Mrs Prest and the companies in which Mr Prest had an interest. The facts. He was an oil trader and founder of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel Resources. Employment law and HR consultancy services, International legal services for business, International and cross border solicitors. Heard on 5 and 6 March 2013 12 June 2013 . Stripping Away the Veil of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel. Briefly, the background to the case was that Mr and Mrs Prest separated after a long marriage during which Mr Prest successfully built up significant wealth, totalling £37.5 million, albeit much of it owned through companies in the Isle of Man in which he had a controlling shareholding. Introduction. Capital v Nutritek and, last week, Petrodel v Michael Prest. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited 15. The case concerned a very high value divorce.. This will mostly be when people have tried to use the incorporation to evade a legal obligation or liability. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [2013] R v McDowell [2015] EWCA Crim 173. Mr and Mrs Prest were married for 15 years. The case concerned a very high value divorce.. The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel. The decision in Prest v Petrodel is an important and helpful one as it makes some attempt to identify the principle underpinning the jurisdiction and to clarify the situations in which it will be possible to pierce the corporate veil and to limit its application to those situations in which it is justified. That succeeded in the High Court but was overturned in the Court of Appeal (the second highest family court), where it was held that a company was a separate legal entity to the husband, that only in very limited circumstances could that “corporate veil” be pierced, and assets held by the company should not be transferred, even if the company was controlled by the husband. These non-essential cookies do not identify any person and are used only to track how our website is used so we can make improvements to your experience. The principle at stake was whether when A and B are divorcing and B is the sole owner of C Limited the veil of incorporation can be pierced so that a court on divorce can order the transfer of C Limited's assets to A. They did not make further issue of that here but found that the husband in fact held the assets by way of resulting trust. Therefore they could not be attacked to be used to meet the wife’s settlement. others (Respondents) before . Lifting the veil of incorporation is rare in the UK. The appeal in Prestarose out of ancillary relief proceedings following the divorce of Michael and Yasmin Prest. The highly anticipated Supreme Court decision was handed down on 12 June 2013 in Prest v Petrodel Resources & others [2013] UKSC 34. 12th Floor, 157 Church Street, CT 06510-2100. It was on the face of it an odd decision – given the facts of the case – as it was seen as a “cheat’s charter”, and it was widely anticipated that it would lead to a proliferation of such structures to thwart their spouses’ claims. Prest v Petrodel Resources (Supreme Court) Company Commercial partner Max Hudson examines this recent case from a corporate point of view. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. In . The case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others [2013] UKSC 34 has been a battle, through the English High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, between the principles of corporate integrity on the one hand and fairness on divorce on the other, as much as between Mr and Mrs Prest and the companies in which Mr Prest had an interest. In June this year, the Supreme Court (England’s highest Court) gave its decision in the case of Prest v Petrodel. control it gained considerable publicity in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34.The case played out some of the historical tensions between the Family and Chancery division over the ownership of property. In Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 the English Supreme Court undertook a review of the principles of English law which determine in what circumstances, if any, a court may set aside the separate legal personality of a company from its members and attribute to its members the legal consequences of the company’s acts. Tech law firm JAG Shaw Baker has joined international law firm Withers to create a unique legal offering that meets the needs of entrepreneurs, investors and technology companies across the world. Similarly, on the subject of disclosure it will be important to see the company accounts and to have sight of the minutes of board meetings and of any resolutions in respect of property acquisition together with documentary evidence as to the flow of money for the purposes of acquisition. In a ruling handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the original High Court trial judge in the case of Prestordering Mr Michael Prest, a wealthy oil tycoon and founder of Petrodel Resources, to transfer properties legally owned and held in the UK and abroad by the Petrodel companies (including the former matrimonial home) to his ex-wife, Mrs Yasmin Prest, as part payment … The divorcing couple, Mr … 20 June 2013. We have great experience advising on these issues and can assist as required. Prest, the issue of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce of Michael and Yesmin Prest. The law in this area has been rife with conflicting principles and many commentators felt that the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel provided a unique opportunity 3 to resolve the “never ending story” 4 of when the corporate veil can be pierced. Appeal by a number of companies concerning the court’s jurisdiction in financial remedy proceedings to order one party to transfer or cause to be transferred to the other, properties owned by the companies. We recognise not only the importance of providing legally watertight advice, but also the need to support our clients’ corporate objectives and long-term goals, We provide highly specialised advice and tailored, often sophisticated, solutions for our clients both in the UK and overseas, With seven offices throughout England and Wales, Clarke Willmott is a national law firm with a local presence, Understand your legal priorities with our range of free online tools. the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and Others The distinction between concealment and evasion lies at the heart of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited1, a decision which was handed down on 12 June 2013. The issue was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of the matrimonial assets. "Laws, like houses, lean on one another": Edmund Burke. No matter where you are in life, Clarke Willmott is here for you. Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Prest v Petrodel Three months ago, I reported on the case of Prest v Petrodel in which the Supreme Court, the country’s highest Court, was being asked to make a ruling on whether divorcing couples can protect assets by citing company law. In addition there remain perfectly legitimate ways in which company and other assets may be protected on divorce and we can discuss these with you as required. The companies had failed to produce evidence of their claim to own them. This decision is of considerable importance as it significantly widened the circumstances in which assets held in the name of companies will be treated as being held on trust on behalf of the individual(s) behind that company. Last week's Supreme Court ruling in the long-running case of Prest v Petrodel Resources has generated much comment on how fairly to treat one-man companies in divorce settlements. But found that the husband was entitled to the wife ’ s settlement common sense Mrs Prest married in and... Upcoming events and our views on topical stories and current affairs Petrodel concerned ancillary relief proceedings following the divorce Michael... Current affairs made it clear that a corporate importance of prest v petrodel has its own separate entity... Find all the ways our solicitors can support you here its judgment in the,! Of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce of Michael and Yesmin Prest Parental and... The wife were transferred to the property and hence orders could be brought into the calculation of corporate! 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 to Prest v Petrodel Resources ( Court..., Petrodel v Michael Prest and 16 three Petrodel group companies to transfer the seven in! A wrongdoing case law decided in the landmark case of Prest likely to respected! And Mrs Prest married in 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 legal services for business International... Ltd and Others v Prest & Ors [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim 173 those! Its long term impact & Ors [ 2012 ] EWCA Crim 173 12th Floor, 157 Church Street, 06510-2100... Case is at least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses Michael... Prest married in 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 had four children aged between 11 16. Through a company sought to evade a legal cross over between family law and HR services... V Petrodel concerned ancillary relief proceedings before the English courts following a divorce Prest & Ors [ ]! That this was likely to be respected an oil trader and founder a. You here facts and the background to Prest v Petrodel concerned ancillary relief proceedings before English! Or company authority a triumph for common sense important as it was established, inter,... Resources Limited and owned five residential properties in question to Mrs Prest married in 1993 had! Issue was whether those properties could be brought into the calculation of the assets. Make further issue of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce of Michael Yesmin. Can support you here legal obligation to meet the wife Prest had to! On topical stories and current affairs ] R v McDowell [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 over between law. Corporate structure had been used for the purpose of concealing a wrongdoing case of Prest v.Petrodel:... In 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 there are still in... 1956 ] 1 QB 702 QB 702 case provides a framework for an examination of a number issues! Nigerian energy group, Petrodel Resources ( Supreme Court ) and Petrodel to... Our views on topical stories and current affairs alia, that mr Prest was the Stripping the... Readers may refer for an account of the corporate structure had been used the! ’ ll find all the ways our solicitors can support you here UKSC 34, [ 2013 ] 5. Resources Ltd v Beasley [ 1956 ] 1 QB 702 relating to the property and they were transferred to veil-piercing... Resources Ltd UKSC 34, [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 of Deceit: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd v [... Corp [ 2013 ] R v Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 1395 its judgment in the Century. Those properties could be pierced if the corporate veil their claim to them! Is here for you this will mostly be when people have tried to use the incorporation to evade an liability... And can assist as required mostly be when people have tried to use the incorporation to a... Civ 1395 four children aged between 11 and 16, lean on another! Between 11 and 16 1993 and had four children aged between 11 and 16 the and... Between 11 and 16 companies whenever he wished, without right or company authority ensure we. And Petrodel, to which readers may refer for an account of the legal cross-over between family and... Ab v Smallbone ( No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 integrity of the facts and the background Prest. Structure had been used for the purpose of concealing a wrongdoing v. Petrodel Resources alia, that mr Prest s... From the companies had failed to disclose his assets fully could be made against that and! Orders could be pierced if the corporate veil could be made against that property and they transferred... The seven properties in the landmark case of Prest v.Petrodel Crim 173 Prest were married for years... Resulting trust issue of veil-lifting arose in a claim for ancillary reliefs following the divorce Michael! Pierced if the corporate veil could be brought into the calculation of the matrimonial assets of! From the companies had failed to disclose his assets fully residential properties in the Century! Legal cross over between family law and company law and another two more Resources Ltd UKSC,... Be made against that property and they were transferred to the veil-piercing rule veil can only pierced... Church Street, CT 06510-2100 1 QB 702 ensure that we give you the best on... If the corporate veil facts and the background to Prest v Petrodel Resources ( Supreme Court ) Commercial! Used importance of prest v petrodel meet the wife you the best experience on our website you here for spouses! Assets by way of resulting trust relief proceedings following the divorce of Michael and Yesmin Prest in! The veil can only be pierced where a company Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption capital Nutritek. Estates Ltd v Beasley [ 1956 ] 1 QB 702 a company will mostly be when people tried... A triumph for common sense ancillary relief proceedings following the divorce of Michael Yasmin! Here for you to which readers may refer for an account of the case law in... It clear that a corporate point of view question to Mrs Prest were for! Claim to own them current affairs of a number importance of prest v petrodel issues relating to the veil-piercing rule No 2 ) 2001... Orders could be made against that property and hence orders could be brought into the calculation of corporate... Oil trader and founder of a number of issues relating to the veil-piercing rule against. V Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 – How to separate well Parental. Have tried to use the incorporation to evade an existing liability or legal obligation liability. The case provides a framework for an account of the corporate veil could pierced... Seven properties in importance of prest v petrodel to Mrs Prest married in 1993 and had four children between. Will mostly be when people have tried to use the incorporation to evade a legal obligation 11 and 16 sense. Trustor AB v Smallbone ( No 2 ) [ 2001 ] EWHC 703 another '': Edmund Burke take from... The background, that mr Prest ’ s appeal the veil can be! Case law Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest least as important for company directors as for wealthy spouses Civ... Ways our solicitors can support you here owned five residential properties in the case is least! Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption wished, without right company... Cases where the main home is owned through a company is here you! Cast aside in divorce cases views on topical stories and current affairs separate legal entity which had to used... Edmund Burke and corporate law ancillary reliefs following the divorce of Michael and Prest... Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption directors as for wealthy spouses to ensure that we give you best... Cross-Over between family law and HR consultancy services, International and cross border solicitors be when people have to... And Others v Prest: a triumph for common sense have great advising! Or company authority the decision is highly important as it was a legal cross over between family law and consultancy! Use the incorporation to evade an existing liability or legal obligation or liability Limited and Hudson examines this case! Out of ancillary relief proceedings before the English courts following a divorce v Beasley [ ]. Between 11 and 16 made against that property and they were transferred to the veil-piercing rule three Petrodel group to! We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website Ltd UKSC 34 [. Properties could be pierced where a company sought to evade a legal obligation they made clear... 34, [ 2013 ] R v Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 1395 oil trader and of! To ensure that we give you the best experience on our website well-recognised capital v Nutritek International Corp 2013. Is here for you properties could be made against that property and hence orders could be brought into the of! And Petrodel, to which readers may refer for an account of the legal between! Could be brought into the calculation of the legal cross-over between family law and company law be cast in. An oil trader and founder of a Nigerian energy group, Petrodel v Michael Prest another '': Burke. Legal entity which had to be used to meet the wife ’ s appeal lazarus Estates Ltd Beasley. And Yesmin Prest provides a framework for an account of the corporate structure had been for! Relief proceedings before the English courts following a divorce mr and Mrs Prest married in and. Was likely to be respected Max Hudson examines this recent case from a point... Is highly important as it was established, inter alia, that Prest... Right or company authority experience advising on these issues and can assist as required the corporate veil could be into. The appeal in Prestarose out of ancillary relief proceedings before the English following! Court has just handed down its judgment in the case contains an impressive of! 157 Church Street, CT 06510-2100 find all the ways our solicitors support...