Family Law

Antonia Barker, senior associate at Vardags, who acted for the wife in this case, comments on Quan v Bray, which involved long-running financial remedy proceedings in which the court made findings of gross litigation misconduct and that the husband had earning capacity that could be inferred.

What are the practical implications of this case?

This was a final hearing in long-running financial remedy proceedings which had commenced in 2012.

The parties ran the project together. The husband, having given up a highly lucrative career in structured finance, provided funds to the project and also procured a donation of almost £20m to the project from his former employer (in resolution of a dispute relating to the donation of his stock appreciation rights to the project). The project raised funds through structured finance trades, in which the husband was expert.

The wife argued that CTSAT was a nuptial settlement capable of variation, or, alternatively, a resource in the Thomas (per Thomas v Thomas [1995] 2 FLR 668) sense. The husband and SCT UK argued that it was not, and were successful, after a preliminary issue hearing on the matter Coleridge J (Li Quan v Bray [2014] EWHC 3340 (Fam), [2015] 2 FLR 546). 

The wife appealed that decision. She was successful at an inter partes permission hearing, but unsuccessful in the subsequent appeal (Quan v Bray and others [2017] EWCA Civ 405, [2018] 1 FLR 1149). The matter was listed for final hearing before Mostyn J (before whom there had been numerous interim hearings in the meantime).

The husband asserted that he was not able to procure remunerative employment, despite being the ultimate beneficial owner of a company, JAS, which had been paid significant sums for its role as an advisor to CTSAT.

Want to access the rest of this story? To read the balance of this article click here (subscription required). This news analysis was first published by LexisPSL Family. To request a free one week trial click here.