CODE 18-77
Reference
Fund and no interest would be paid. The Treasury were, however, prepared to agree with the FCO suggestion that the gift should be held in trust by the British Council and were content for the FCO to proceed on these lines.
6. Sir S K Tang died on 19 June 1986. His will contained no mention of the gift. His widow, who was also his executrix, and his son and daughter have been informed of the proposals for the administration of the money. The executrix has said that she is quite content for the handling of the money to be left entirely in the hands of HMG both in respect of the educational and medical aspects.
7.
Applicable Law
This whole transaction took place in Hong Kong.
Accordingly, the validity of the donation and the question of whether the money is now held in trust or not should probably be decided in the first place by reference to the law of Hong Kong. It seems reasonable to work on the assumption that the law in Hong Kong in relation to gifts and the creation of trusts is similar to that in England, and this minute proceeds on that basis. To place this beyond any doubt, consideration may have to be given to obtaining an opinion from a lawyer in Hong Kong, perhaps from within HKG. We would want confirmation that a valild trust exists in the law of Hong Kong for the purposes described in paragraph 9 below.
8.
Sir S K Tang's donation
It would appear from the items at Flags C, D, N, P and O that a gift of £1 million was made by Sir S K to the Chief Secretary of Hong Kong on 10 June 1986. I therefore think there is no question of the £1 million ever forming part of Sir S K's estate at his death, and no question that his executrix or heirs could have a claim to it in the division of his estate, even if they wished to. From the correspondence at Flags B, E and M it is apparent that Sir S K's intention was to creat a fund, the interest on which could be applied to charitable purposes in the UK at the discretion of HMG. The particular purposes which he had in mind appear more fully in the reports of correspondence between the Chief Secretary and Sir S K, contained in the telegram at Flag M.
9.
In all the circumstances, I think it is fair to conclude that the money is now held in trust for the purposes outlined in that telegram at Flag M. It would be unreasonable to regard the donation as a straight forward gift to HMG, and all the essential elements of a valid trust are present. The money is "property capable of being subjected to a trust"; there has been delivery of the trust
IM2ADL