Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr. Richard Todd QC and Ms. Lily Mottahedan (instructed by Messrs. Vardags) for the Petitioner William Stuart Bray appeared in person Mr. Richard Harrison QC, Mr. David Eaton Turner and Ms. Samantha Ridley (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) for Save China's Tigers Hearing dates: 9-20 December 2013 and 19 June�8 July 2014 ____________________
I found him to be a compelling witness and have no hesitation in accepting what he has written and said.
a. Neither party is identified directly on the face of the written instrument (in schedule 2), as a beneficiary of CTSAT. Only SCT UK. Can it nevertheless be categorised as a PNS and one or other of them as a beneficiary of that trust, merely because CTSAT, as a fully discretionary trust, is capable of being amended or adjusted (by adding trustees or terms) to make them such?
b. If not should CTSAT nevertheless be regarded as having become a PNS if there is, anyway by the time of the application to vary, an existing intention to benefit one or both of them which is evidenced by past receipts from the trust?
c. If the parties have not to date received such benefits is the mere intention (established by other evidence) to benefit one of the spouses in an unspecified way and at some unspecified time in the future sufficient of itself to constitute a PNS ?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.