CONFIDENTIAL
presumab
Apparently
that ཀ left
ここ
subsequent
commun
formal and verbal, woen Sur 3 K Dans, 13 emerged
fairly open for HMG
now she donation
་་
several options Tel No.
FCC that
setting
s X Tang
29
a trust and
De
make suggestions as used and invested. FCC suggested
and in Te
No. 1377 HKG informed
not WISA Co рессте involved 10
not want the capital itself
the interest from WO for Hong
De usea either. He favoured using
on the donation icx funding scholarships
Konc Students to study Py the British Council; remaining one-third SO
rese
that
Cn.
what
The UK (15 possible, administered and donating the interest from the medical crust, such as cancer
March 1986 zaken
connection
The Letter of
he
subsequently indicated, In particular his wish interest receivable from the gift be distributed 18 sne manner ne favoureqare not enough to create a trust favour こな the charities specified. It appeared from subsequent communications with Sir S K Tang that he knew DV a legal document have made compulsory the of the €1 million for the charitable purposes ne jav ured DUC ne indicated that he did not wish to set trust. Donating a sum of money in order that the donee may nave Che ability co Subscribe to certain charities nas Rever ceen neld Co amoun: to a trust in favour of the
es (Wheeler v. Smita 1860), Giff. 300, at 308).
1
Ze
app
спа
evidence
upon HMG silent as
10.
1
Sir SK Tang's will (copy attached) would be good whether ΟΣ noc he intended to impose a trust respect of se donation. However, the will 15 to the said gift.
As 10 seems
De the correct View of this case that Sir S K Tang depended upon HMG to fulfil his wish with regard to the charities concerned, he did not intend to impose any legal obligation and therefore, did not include them will Or in any legal document. An expression of wish would not set up a trust unless the circumstances indicate that the words were used 12 an imperative sense.
10
11
to the
From 10 March 1986 to 10 June 1986 the latter being the date when a cheque for El million was handed Chief Secretary (who accepted it on behalf of HMG), the case 16 wholly without evidence to prove that any valid trust was created or attached to HMG's legal interest. On a fair consideration of the whole of the evidence in this case, my View 19 that the transaction amounts to this : that a charitable gift was made to HMG when Sir S K Tang was living, that สว objects were pointed out for whose benefit the gift was co be applied, it was left to HMG's discretion to apply 1t as they might think
but he trusted that HMG would exercise such power in doing such charitable acts as they knew he would most approve of.
they
CONFIDENTIAL
/12. I
Page 105Page 106