However, the decision of the Supreme Court in Prest may in fact have set things on the right path, even if the Justices did not speak with one voice in relation to veil piercing. The case itself actually involved a matrimonial dispute. The wife argued that the husband sought to hide some of his assets by vesting them in companies that he controlled, and asked that those underlying properties be transferred to her by way of an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.24(1)(a), as the husband was “entitled … in possession” to them. One issue was whether an order could be made without piercing the corporate veil. At first instance, Moylan J (having found that the veil could not be pierced as there was no impropriety) thought, however, that this was possible.9 However, the majority in the Court of Appeal10 disagreed (for, per Rimer LJ, “once the judge had rejected the impropriety assertion, he had no choice but to reject the claim that [the] properties were or could be regarded as properties to which the husband had any entitlement"11).