Tiger Charity Divorce Case ‘Puts Financial Disclosure In Spotlight’

Specialist Lawyers React After Appeal Is Given Green Light

11.11.2015

The decision to grant the ex-wife of a banker permission to challenge a ruling related to their divorce is “an interesting turn of events” which puts the spotlight once again on financial disclosure in such cases.

Li Quan has been allowed to proceed with an appeal regarding her case against former husband William Bray in relation to funds invested into a tiger charity.

It is thought that £25 million was invested into the shared project in South Africa, which emerged as the banker grew to share his wife’s passion for conservation and saving endangered tigers.

However, at the High Court last year it was heard that their relationship broke down due to conflict regarding the future of the charity, with it also being decided that the £25 million put into the charity should not be viewed as marital assets.

This week, Richard Todd QC, for Miss Quan, successfully argued that the husband remained the controller of the funds invested into the organisation.

Reacting to the latest developments, Irwin Mitchell’s specialist family law experts said the case followed recent major rulings in terms of putting a spotlight on the issue of disclosing assets during divorce proceedings.

Irwin Mitchell recently helped both Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil to a Supreme Court victory which meant divorce settlement rulings were set aside on the basis that their ex-husbands misled them regarding their wealth.

Expert Opinion
“This is an interesting turn of events in the tiger charity case and shows the need for transparency in providing financial disclosure to ascertain what is and is not a matrimonial asset available for distribution now, or in the future.

“It undoubtedly follows the precedent set in the Sharland and Gohil cases and puts a spotlight on similar issues which those cases raised. If anything could be learned from those cases, it was that dishonesty regarding financial assets will simply not be tolerated.

“The Court of Appeal are clearly concerned as to whether the husband had fully disclosed his position in relation to the charity and whether that had been taken fully into account by the High Court.”
Alison Fernandes, Partner