The Court of Appeal has made a ruling on
the case of Quan v Bray and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 405. The case
involved a dispute over a trust, known as the Chinese Tigers South African
Trust, which had been set up in 2002 by a husband and wife to help repopulate
Chinese tigers to the wild. The couple subsequently separated and the wife issued
a claim for a financial remedy in divorce proceedings. She argued that the
trust, which held approximately £25m in assets at the time, was nuptial in nature
and could therefore be considered a resource available to the parties from
which her financial claims could be met. There were minimal matrimonial assets
outside the trust so this question was fundamental to outcome of her claim.
In
2014, Sir Paul Coleridge found against the wife concluding that the trust had
been set up for the benefit of the tigers and not to support the couple
financially. The wife sought to immediately challenge the finding through a
Barrell application which was the subject of a post on this blog. She was unsuccessful
and drew criticism from the judge for trying to “have another go” without going
through the correct procedure.
Unsurprisingly then,
the wife appealed Sir Paul Coleridge’s decision and the Court of Appeal
handed down its decision last week. Lady Justice King delivered the leading
judgment in which she considered whether Sir Paul Coleridge had provided
adequate reasoning for his finding, whether or not he had dealt with all of the
relevant issues and, if not, whether his conclusion would have been different. King
LJ was cautious about the shortness and lack of detail contained in the original judgment, stating:
“Whilst economical
judgments are to be applauded, it is hard to resist a submission that this
judgment, if not actually short of background and of analysis of the
surrounding arguments, was perilously close to it.”
Notwithstanding this
comment, the wife’s appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the wife
had not successfully challenged the original findings and, as such, the trust
was not nuptial in nature and therefore not available to the parties on the divorce.
The status of the
trust was a preliminary issue which has taken years to get to this stage at
considerable financial cost. King LJ referenced over £3.5m in legal costs with
£340,000 alone spent on the wife’s appeal. If this is the end of the matter
then the wife’s financial claim can proceed to be determined without reference
to the funds in the trust. That said, given the wife’s determination in this
case so far, it would not be surprising if this case were to find its way to
the Supreme Court.
The original post
on the case can be found here.
