Quan v Bray & Ors

Quan v Bray & Ors

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and his assessment of credibility, that CTSAT was established and operated solely for charitable purposes (the Chinese Tiger Project), was not a post-nuptial settlement, and was not a resource available to either party. The judge's findings were adequately reasoned and not undermined by any failure to address specific evidence or arguments.

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/financial Remedy) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Post Nuptial Settlements, Financial Remedies on Divorce, Offshore Trusts, Charitable Trusts, Disclosure and Case Management, Appeals on Findings of Fact
Family Law Trusts and Equity Post Nuptial Settlements Financial Remedies on Divorce Offshore Trusts Charitable Trusts Disclosure and Case Management Appeals on Findings of Fact

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 12 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/financial Remedy) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chinese Tigers South African Trust (CTSAT) is a post-nuptial settlement subject to variation under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 24(1)(c)
  2. 2 Whether assets held in CTSAT are a financial resource available to either party under section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's findings of fact and reasoning were adequate and sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and his assessment of credibility, that CTSAT was established and operated solely for charitable purposes (the Chinese Tiger Project), was not a post-nuptial settlement, and was not a resource available to either party. The judge's findings were adequately reasoned and not undermined by any failure to address specific evidence or arguments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court upheld.