Varie
Save China's Tigers Exonerated in UK High Court
In this highly unusual divorce case, Ms Quan alleged that the operator of the project on behalf of Save China's Tigers - CTSAT - was established not only to advance the cause of the Chinese tiger (the "Chinese Tiger Project") but also to provide financial benefit and support for the husband and wife personally. She also alleged that charity funds had been diverted and used to support a lavish lifestyle for the couple, to the detriment of tiger conservation. She claimed that the assets of the Chinese Tiger Project (she put them at up to £50 million) should be available for distribution in the divorce. Both the claim and the estimated value were hotly contested by Mr Bray and the charity.
Mr Justice Coleridge today found against Ms Quan, ruling that the sole purpose of CTSAT is to advance the Chinese Tiger Project and not to provide financial benefit and support for the husband and/or the wife personally. Accordingly, the husband and wife have no rights to the assets of CTSAT. He also ruled that there had been no impropriety by the husband or wife from a UK charity perspective, rejecting various claims Ms Quan had made before the Court about the misuse of charity assets.
Hearing of this issue began in December 2013 and, following a lengthy adjournment, concluded in July 2014 . Ms Quan's allegations were widely reported in the press in December 2013 . Today's judgment unequivocally rejects her case with Mr Justice Coleridge commenting that a number of her allegations had been fabricated in order to advance her position.
The judgment represents the culmination of 25 days of court time (including reading days). Mr Justice Coleridge came to his decision after examination of over 30 files of documents, taking into consideration witness examination and arguments put forward by experienced Queen's Counsel.
The Judge wrote:
Ms Quan's case is " " and that " "
" "
His conclusion was supported by expert evidence prepared by Mr Mason of leading accounting firm BDO. In respect of Mr Mason's evidence, the Judgment states:
" ."
and .
On the credibility of the wife's evidence, Mr Justice Coleridge found:
"... [is] "
" ".
In respect of , the Judge commented:
" "
and " [Chinese tiger] "
In contrast, the Judge was entirely comfortable with Mr Bray's evidence which was given in support of the charity's position, stating:
Speaking on behalf of the Save China's Tigers charity, Mr David K Thomas said "We are very pleased with Mr Justice Coleridge's ruling and that the charity's assets are safe from attack. The untrue allegations made by Ms Quan have been damaging to the charity. Naturally, we regret the circumstances in which it became necessary to address these allegations and particularly the fact that our limited resources have been diverted from our conservation work with the Chinese tigers. Now that the Court has so clearly exonerated both the charity and its officers of any wrongdoing, we will strive to restore the charity's reputation. We fully intend to put this episode behind us and focus our efforts on the Chinese Tiger Project. Save China's Tigers remains 100% committed to working with the Chinese government to reintroduce wild South China tigers into suitable protected landscapes in China ."
Mark Lim , Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution team at Lewis Silkin LLP (who represented Save China's Tigers) said, "We are pleased to have worked with the team at Save China's Tigers to secure today's judgment. We hope that the charity may now focus on the very important conservation work that it undertakes on a daily basis to save these magnificent animals."
With this issue determined, the Court will now focus on division of the couple's own disputed assets of approximately £2 million.
For more information: