Quan v Bray & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 405 (16 June 2017)

Quan v Bray & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 405 (16 June 2017)

CTSAT was established and operated solely for charitable purposes, with no intention or evidence of benefit to either party. It is neither a post-nuptial settlement nor a resource available under section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The High Court judge's findings of fact and credibility are supported by contemporaneous documents and evidence, and the Barrell application was properly rejected.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 405
Parties
Appellant: Li Quan; 1st Respondent: Stuart Bray; 2nd Respondent: Maitland (Mauritius) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Chinese Tigers South African Trust; 4th Respondent: Save China's Tigers; 5th Respondent: Ralph Edmond Bray; 6th Respondent: Conservation Finance Limited; 7th Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Division, Financial Remedy) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Post Nuptial Settlements, Trust Resources in Divorce, Charitable Trusts, Variation of Settlements, Disclosure and Case Management
Family Law Trusts and Equity Charity Law Post Nuptial Settlements Trust Resources in Divorce Charitable Trusts Variation of Settlements Disclosure and Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Quan

Appellant

Stuart Bray

1st Respondent

Maitland (Mauritius) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Chinese Tigers South African Trust

3rd Respondent

Save China's Tigers

4th Respondent

Ralph Edmond Bray

5th Respondent

Conservation Finance Limited

6th Respondent

The Attorney General

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Division, Financial Remedy) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CTSAT is a post-nuptial settlement
  2. 2 Whether CTSAT is a resource available to either party under section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  3. 3 Adequacy of reasons in the High Court judgment

Ratio Decidendi

CTSAT was established and operated solely for charitable purposes, with no intention or evidence of benefit to either party. It is neither a post-nuptial settlement nor a resource available under section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The High Court judge's findings of fact and credibility are supported by contemporaneous documents and evidence, and the Barrell application was properly rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No variation of CTSAT
  • No order for lump sum against husband from CTSAT