The former partner of a fashion guru is locked in a bitter High Court battle with his family over a £1million will.
Tibor Matyas was the ‘romantic and business partner’ of Chris Liu at the time of the designer’s death in 2017 aged 47.
The pair worked together on their label Chris and Tibor with Mr Matyas handling the management and marketing side of the business.
When Mr Liu died of cancer, his partner received a jointly owned £470,000 London apartment and a 25 per cent share of another flat in the city, with the rest of the estate going to the designer’s family in China.
But Mr Matyas is now suing for ‘reasonable provision’ from the will, claiming he was financially ‘dependent’ on him and telling a judge one reason he cannot work is due to walking his dog.
London College of Fashion graduate Mr Liu started as a womenswear designer selling to high-end outlets including Harvey Nichols, with celebrity clients reportedly including Kylie Minogue and Sade.
Mr Matyas and Mr Liu had both worked as design consultants for Burberry before setting up in 2005 their label promoting bags designed for men.
The High Court heard that they purchased a property portfolio which included flats in Kinetica Apartments, Thornbury Close and Atkins Square – all in Dalston, east London.
Tibor Matyas pictured outside the High Court. He was the ‘romantic and business partner’ of designer Chris Liu at the time of his death and is now battling his family over his £1million will
When Mr Liu, pictured, died of cancer, his partner Mr Matyas received a jointly owned £470,000 London apartment and a 25 per cent share of another flat in the city
The £470,000 Thornbury Close flat automatically passed to Mr Matyas on Mr Liu’s death as it was in both their names but the other two had been held in his sole name and went into his estate.
In his 2015 will, he left almost everything to his parents and brother apart from a quarter share of the £400,000 Atkins Square property which went to his business partner.
A seven-year battle then erupted between Mr Matyas, his partner’s parents De Heng Liu and Xuan Rong Yang and his brother Pu Liu.
Mr Matyas and his partner’s brother had initially been made joint executors of Mr Liu’s estate but were replaced by a professional executor.
The late designer’s partner is seeking a judge’s ruling under the 1975 Inheritance Act for ‘reasonable financial provision’ out of the estate, claiming he will struggle to meet day to day expenses without being handed more money.
Although the designer’s family have not travelled to the UK for the trial, they are defending his claim on grounds that most of the cash for the property purchases came from them.
Mr Matyas’s claim is also being opposed in court by the administrator of the estate Peter Daniel.
He told the court how he has struggled to get his career back on track after his partner’s death despite previously taking on work as a chef.
In written evidence, he said: ‘I was financially and emotionally dependent on Chris. I was maintained by him and financially dependent on him.’
Questioning him about the extent of his ‘reasonable financial provision needs’, Deputy Judge Andrew Scott asked: ‘You seem to be an intelligent, capable and together person now and it’s not entirely clear to me why you can’t find employment?’
He replied: ‘I am also alone and looking after my dog and I have to take out the dog.’
Aidan Briggs, for Mr Matyas, told the judge that his dog also adds to his financial needs as he spends £3,800 annually on pet food, vets’ bills and kennels.
He said that he is trying hard to get back into working as an entrepreneur – which takes time to plan.
Mr Matyas added that, at the age of almost 50, finding work of any kind is a struggle.
Pictured: Atkins Square apartments in Dalston. A flat in the block was held in Mr Liu’s sole name and went into his estate. Mr Matyas says he and Mr Liu understood the property was jointly owned
He said: ‘The only employment I can find is low-end and would be full-time, which would take up all my time.
‘There would be no exit from that circle because I would be working for survival.’
The court heard Mr Matyas also has significant debts, including legal bills from the fight, and wants his financial needs to be met from the estate through a regular income stream rather than a one-off lump sum payment.
He is also bringing an alternative case that the properties should be shared equally between him and the estate on the basis of a ‘constructive trust’ despite being in his partner’s sole name.
In his evidence, he insisted he and Mr Liu always understood the properties were jointly owned and that they lived together ‘as though they were a married couple’.
He said: ‘Our joint income originated from the same source – neither Chris nor I had any independent business ventures.’
Mr Matyas claimed the funds to buy Kinetica Apartments came from their company, although ‘by a circuitous route’.
He added he and Mr Liu ended up putting it in the latter’s name alone to placate his family in China as ‘he had never been open about his sexuality’ and they believed Mr Matyas was simply his business partner.
‘My name couldn’t be on the property due to pressure from Chris’ family,’ he added.
‘Chris asked me to allow the property [Kinetica] to be registered in his sole name so that his family would stop questioning him.
‘He assured me that this wouldn’t change anything about our home; it would still belong to both of us, and we would continue to share everything as always.’
The same situation occurred when the couple acquired their flat in Atkins Square, according to Mr Matyas, with the funds coming from both of them but only Mr Liu registered as an owner.
But Timothy Evans – barrister for the estate administrator Peter Daniel who is now opposing Mr Matyas’s claim – said the evidence showed the property purchases were funded by Mr Liu’s family.
He claimed the cash used to acquire the Kinetica flat ‘derived from payments made to the deceased from China’.
Mr Evans said that for Mr Matyas to succeed in his reasonable provision claim, he must ‘show on the balance of probabilities that he lived with the deceased as though they were a married couple for the whole of the period from 10 April 2015’.
He added Mr Matyas ‘must show that the will failed in all the circumstances, looked at today, to make reasonable financial provision for him’.
Pictured: Kinetica Apartments also in Dalston, which Mr Matyas also believed he jointly owned with Mr Liu
He added: ‘The provision actually made for him was a quarter share in Atkins Square, but the circumstances also of course include the fact that he took the whole of Thornbury Close by survivorship on the deceased’s death.
‘Consideration as to whether any, and if so what, award should be made to Mr Matyas needs to take account of the interests of the other beneficiaries.’
While Mr Liu’s fortune was valued at about £1,061,368, much of that could now be consumed by the legal costs of the dispute and other expenses, the court heard.
The judge has now reserved his ruling in the case.
