This appeal arises out of proceedings for financial remedies following a divorce between Michael and Yasmin Prest. The appeal concerns the position of a number of companies belonging to the Petrodel Group which were wholly owned and controlled by Michael Prest, the husband. One of the companies was the legal owner of five residential properties in the UK and another was the legal owner of two more. The question on this appeal is whether the court has power to order the transfer of these seven properties to the wife given that they legally belong not to the husband but to his companies. Under Section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the 1973 Act), the court may order that a party to the marriage shall transfer to the other partysuch property as may be so specified, being property to which the first mentioned party is entitled, either in possession or reversion. In the High Court, Moylan J concluded that there was no general principle that entitled him to reach the companies assets by piercing the corporate veil. He nevertheless concluded that a wider jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil was available under section 24 of the 1973 Act. In the Court of Appeal, three of the companies challenged the decision on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to order their property to be conveyed to the wife. The majority in the Court of Appeal agreed and criticised the practice of the Family Division of treating assets of companies substantially owed by one party to a marriage as available for distribution under section 24 of the 1973 Act. The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal by Yasmin Prest and declares that the seven disputed properties vested in the companies are held on trust for the husband on the ground (which was not considered by the courts below) that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the properties were held by the husbands companies on a resulting trust for the husband, and were accordingly property to which the [husband] is entitled, either in possession or reversion. Lord Sumption gives the leading judgment and Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke and Lord Walker add concurring judgments. There are three possible legal bases on which the assets of the companies might be available to satisfy the lump sum order against the husband: (1) that this is a case where, exceptionally, the Court may disregard the corporate veil in order to give effective relief; (2) that section 24 of the 1973 Act confers a distinct power to disregard the corporate veil in matrimonial cases; or (3) that the companies hold the properties on trust for the husband, not by virtue of his status as sole shareholder and controller of the company, but in the particular circumstances of the case [9]. After surveying the authorities, the Court holds that there is a principle of English law which enables a court in very limited circumstances to pierce the corporate veil. It applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control. The court may then pierce the corporate veil but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the companys separate legal personality. In most cases the facts necessary to establish this will disclose a legal relationship between the company and its controller giving rise to legal or equitable rights of the controller over the companys property, thus making it unnecessary to pierce the veil. In these cases, there is no public policy imperative justifying piercing the corporate veil. But the recognition of a small residual category of cases where the abuse of the corporate veil to evade or frustrate the law can be addressed only by disregarding the legal personality of the company is consistent with authority and long standing principles of legal policy. [35] The principle has no application in the present case because the husbands actions did not evade or frustrate any legal obligation to his wife, nor was he concealing or evading the law in relation to the distribution of assets of the marriage upon its dissolution [36]. Some of the concurring judgments reserve the possibility of a somewhat wider test, but not in respects which affect its application to the present case. The Court rejects the argument that a broader principle applies in matrimonial proceedings by virtue of section 24(1)(a) of the 1973 Act. The section invokes concepts of the law of property with an established legal meaning which cannot be suspended or taken to mean something different in matrimonial proceedings [37]. Nothing in the statutory history or wording of the 1973 Act suggests otherwise [86 9]. General words in a statute are not to be read in a manner inconsistent with fundamental principles of law unless this result is required by express words or necessary implication [40]. The trial judges reasoning cut across the statutory scheme of company and insolvency law which are essential for protecting those dealing with companies [41]. It follows that the only basis on which the companies could be ordered to convey properties to the wife is that they belong beneficially to the husband, by virtue of the particular circumstances in which the properties came to be vested in them [43]. After examining the relevant findings about the acquisition of the seven disputed properties, the Court finds that the most plausible inference from the known facts was that each of the properties was held on resulting trust by the companies for the husband. The trial judge found that the husband had deliberately sought to conceal the fact in his evidence and failed to comply with court orders with particular regard to disclosing evidence [4]. Adverse influences could therefore be drawn against him. [45]. The Court inferred that the reason for the companies failure to co operate was to protect the properties, which suggested that proper disclosure would reveal them to beneficially owned by the husband [47]. It followed that there was no reliable evidence to rebut the most plausible inference from the facts [49 51].