The This means that the knowledge of certain

The final appeal made by Mrs Prest was allowed unanimously, but on a different ground, as it was stated by the Supreme Court, that for the benefit of Mr Prest his properties were held on trust by the companies and as a result, could form part of the divorce settlement.The importance of Prest is vital as the impact it has upon prior law is significant, the instances where the lifting of the veil can be justified have been reduced gradually. Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger were of the opinion that the courts should not create the grounds on which to pierce the veil.  And this led to the statement, that it is unlikely that the doctrine of the lifting of the veil in this field would ever be invoked properly and successfully in the future as such tight boundaries leave no space for manoeuvres in order to apply the law. The company can also be liable for wrongdoing in the areas of criminal liability and to properly apply the mens rea requirement, the law utilizes the “Attribution Rule” also known as “Identification Doctrine”. This means that the knowledge of certain persons would be regarded as the knowledge of the company and their personality would be attributed to the company to make it liable. It is mostly used to find out whether the company performed the action with the required mental state. However, only the knowledge of people directly in charge of the actions of the company who constitute “directing mind and will”  will be attributed. The courts are trying to find the balance between finding out another way to pierce through the company veil and to be fair, just and reasonable in its decisions. The limitations of attribution were established in Lennard`s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705 (HL) and in the majority of cases this principle of attributing the knowledge will be limited to the senior officers and directors as this happened in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass 1971 2 All ER 127 (HL). To find the middle point, the courts have decided that the directors cannot use their companies to act unlawfully, and attribute such actions to the company to use it as a defence. In such case, the company will be considered as a victim of the illegal actions of its directors and will not be liable as it happened in the recent case of Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) 2015 UKSC 23. It should be noted, that this case is not supporting the point that director`s wrongdoing can never be identified as company`s but shows an example of finding the balance in questionable situations. When there is a strict liability rise, such as licensing or pollution, there is no need to establish mens rea as it is not important, whether it was done recklessly or intentionally.The main outcome the courts are seeking when piercing the veil is to provide a fair, just and reasonable decision. It is vital to achieving a fair balance between the protection of the company as a separate legal entity, the shareholders and those who manage the company and find liability where it lays. Company law protects the company from the wrongdoings of the those who manage it and its shareholders by the concept of incorporation. It could be said that the ‘veil’ establishes the scope of the protection conferred by the law to the company.  As evidenced throughout this essay, the courts are willing to circumvent the principle of incorporation by ‘piercing’ the veil in order to reach those who hide their wrongdoings behind it and attach liability to them. It is clear that the courts are not prepared to accept dishonest actions hidden behind the veil of incorporation. And there are still critical points to be developed, as recent cases are failing to apply the law when it is certainly needed.   Needless to say, it should be the priority to keep the Salomon principle from being abused to hide fraudulent activities of a company so those who operate within the legal framework will know that fair and legal business is protected by the law. While the purpose of lifting the veil should remain clear as it is extremely important to find who is responsible for the company`s wrongdoings, the individual or the company itself as a separate legal entity.