{"id":5792,"date":"2018-03-07T09:26:58","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:26:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-10-05T11:45:11","modified_gmt":"2021-10-05T11:45:11","slug":"prest-v-petrodel-resources","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php","title":{"rendered":"Prest v Petrodel"},"content":{"rendered":"

Legal Case Summary<\/h2>\n

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others [2013] UKSC 34<\/strong><\/p>\n

Resolving the veil of corporate personality<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Since Salomon v Salomon<\/a>,1<\/sup> it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it. However, there have been circumstances in which the courts have been prepared to \u201cpierce the veil\u201d2<\/sup> of corporate personality to find the members of the company liable for company actions in certain circumstances. 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 opportunity3<\/sup> to resolve the \u201cnever ending story\u201d4<\/sup> of when the corporate veil can be pierced.<\/p>\n

The Facts<\/h3>\n

The divorcing couple, Mr and Mrs Prest, were wealthy. They owned a substantial matrimonial home in the UK and a second home in Nevis.5<\/sup> Mrs Prest contended that her husband\u2019s wealth vastly exceeded this and argued that properties held by several companies of which Mr Prest \u201cwholly owned and controlled\u201d were in reality owned by him. It should be noted that although the matrimonial home itself was also owned by one of the companies, it was established in the Court of Appeal that this was held on trust for Mrs Prest and did not form part of the appeal to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The case was originally heard in the family court6<\/sup> as an application for ancillary relief by the wife in a case of divorcing spouses, where it was held by Moylan LJ that although there was no general principle by which the corporate veil could be pierced, this was possible under section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act.7<\/sup> Three of the companies of which Mr Prest was the majority shareholder appealed to the Court of Appeal, in which the majority criticised not only Moylan LJ\u2019s dicta but the general practice of the family courts to use the MCA to pierce the corporate veil and asserted that in the absence of abuse of the Salomon principle, the law did not permit this.8<\/sup> Patten LJ asserted that this practice \u201camounts almost to a separate system of legal rules unaffected by the relevant principles of English property and company law\u201d9<\/sup> and must cease. Mrs Prest appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The Issues<\/h3>\n

The issue for the Supreme Court was how to ensure that, particularly in cases of divorcing spouses and in single-man companies, company law could not be used as a tool to conceal assets or avoid liability in relation to those assets, whilst maintaining the integrity of the Salomon principle.<\/p>\n

The Decision<\/h3>\n

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision. The leading judgment was given by Lord Sumption, who observed that the law relating to the circumstances in which it would be permissible for the courts to pierce the corporate veil was characterised by \u201cinadequate reasoning\u201d.10<\/sup> Despite this confusion in the law, Lord Sumption asserted that the position established in Adams v Cape Industries<\/a>11<\/sup>, is that the doctrine of veil piercing required some dishonesty on the part of the company member and was not simply a device that could be employed to ensure justice in a particular case.12<\/sup> His lordship went on to observe that this principle had been affirmed Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2)13<\/sup> in which it was also established that the dishonesty must involve company law being used as a sham or fa\u00e7ade to disguise the true ownership of property.<\/p>\n

Lord Sumption asserted however that the terms sham or fa\u00e7ade should be replaced with \u2018evasion\u2019 and \u2018concealment\u2019.14<\/sup> Where there has been concealment of liability, he argued, there will be no need to pierce the corporate veil because, as Lord Neuberger agreed, all that would be required would be to look behind the veil to establish the true actors.15<\/sup> Lord Sumption asserted that this was the position adopted by Lord Neuberger in VTB16<\/sup>, although he argued that due to the fact that the court in that case had not needed to pierce the veil, it could not be used as authority in Prest.17<\/sup> The judgement in Prest therefore clarified that piercing the corporate veil would only be possible when company law had been used to evade liability, although this alone would not be enough, and that even where such impropriety had arisen, it would usually be possible to apply another area of law in order to grant a remedy,18<\/sup> in this case the application of trust principles to ensure Mrs Prest was entitled to a beneficial interest in the properties. Prest therefore established that although it is possible that the corporate veil may be pierced in some circumstances, it is not clear what these circumstances are beyond the fact that the remedy is only a last resort19<\/sup> and as such it seems that the decision failed to take advantage of the opportunity to clarify the law.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

Some commentators have asserted that the decision in Prest is to be \u201cwelcomed\u201d20<\/sup> as although it does confirm that the Salomon principle remains a cornerstone of UK company law,21<\/sup> it also recognises that there will be circumstances in which the veil can be pierced in order to grant a remedy. However, this author finds such a view difficult to accept. Firstly, although the case does make it clear that veil piercing will only be appropriate where there has been evasion of liabilities and where no other remedy of law will provide an appropriate remedy, as shown above, the judgment gives no indication of precisely the circumstances in which the veil may still be pierced and thus the decision should be seen only as contributing further to the uncertainties surrounding this area of law. Indeed, one rather cynical commentator has argued that Lord Sumption \u201calmost seemed relieved\u201d22<\/sup> that the veil could not be pierced in Prest because it meant he did not need to determine the \u201cdefinitive\u201d23<\/sup> circumstances in which the veil may be pierced in the future. This author would submit that cynicism aside, it remains the unfortunate position that although Prest has limited the doctrine by confirming that it is only to be used as a remedy of last resort, a future decision will be required to confirm exactly when the doctrine may be applied.<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/h3>\n

1<\/sup> Salomon v Salomon 1897<\/sup> AC 22<\/p>\n

2<\/sup> VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corporation and Others 2013<\/sup> UKSC 5 per Lloyd LJ at 47<\/sup><\/p>\n

3<\/sup> P Breakey, \u2018Is Piercing the Veil Contrary to High Authority: A Footnote to the Never Ending Story\u2019 (2013) Comp Law 34(11) 352-355, 355<\/p>\n

4<\/sup> L Linklater, \u2018Piercing the Corporate Veil\u2019: The Never Ending Story?\u201d (2006) 27 Company Lawyer 65, title<\/p>\n

5<\/sup> Prest (n1) per Lord Sumption at 1<\/sup><\/p>\n

6<\/sup> Prest v Prest, Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others 2011<\/sup> EWHC 2956 (Fam)<\/p>\n

7<\/sup> Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA)<\/p>\n

8<\/sup> Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others v Prest & Others 2012<\/sup> EWCA Civ 1395 per Rimer LJ at 136<\/sup><\/p>\n

9<\/sup> ibid per Patten LJ at 161<\/sup><\/p>\n

10<\/sup> Prest (n1) per Lord Sumption at 19<\/sup><\/p>\n

11<\/sup> Adams v Cape Industries Plc<\/a> 1990<\/sup> Ch 433<\/p>\n

12<\/sup> ibid per Slade LJ at 536<\/sup><\/p>\n

13<\/sup> Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2) 2001<\/sup> 1 WLR 1177<\/p>\n

14<\/sup> Prest (n1) per Lord Sumption at 29<\/sup><\/p>\n

15<\/sup> ibid per Lord Neuberger at 61<\/sup><\/p>\n

16<\/sup> VTB (n3)<\/p>\n

17<\/sup> Prest (n1) per Lord Sumption at 26<\/sup><\/p>\n

18<\/sup> ibid per Lord Sumption at 53<\/sup><\/p>\n

19<\/sup> ibid per Lord Sumption at 61<\/sup><\/p>\n

20<\/sup> E Roxburgh, \u2018Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd: Cold Comfort for Mrs Prest in Scotland\u2019 (2013) SLT 32 223-225, 225<\/p>\n

21<\/sup> JHY Chan, \u2018Should \u2018Reverse Piercing\u2019 of the Corporate Veil be Introduced in English Law\u2019 (2014) Comp Law 35(6) 163-171, 163<\/p>\n

22<\/sup> P Bailey, \u20182013: That Was The Year That Was in Company Law\u2019 Co. L.N. 2014, 347, 1-4,2<\/p>\n

23<\/sup> S Peppy, \u2018Cheat\u2019s Charter Endorsed \u2013 Existing Family Division Practice Must Now Cease\u2019 (2012) Family Affairs 56 Winter, 10<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nPrest v Petrodel | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prest v Petrodel\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Prest v Petrodel\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\"},\"wordCount\":1269,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\",\"name\":\"Prest v Petrodel | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prest v Petrodel\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prest v Petrodel | LawTeacher.net","description":"Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prest v Petrodel","og_description":"Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Prest v Petrodel","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php"},"wordCount":1269,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php","name":"Prest v Petrodel | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"Since Salomon v Salomon,1 it has been well established in UK law that a company has a separate personality to that of its members, and that such members cannot be liable for the debts of a company beyond their initial financial contribution to it.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/prest-v-petrodel-resources.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prest v Petrodel"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}