A brother who claims he gave up his ‘well-paid’ film job to care for his parents has been branded a ‘parasite’ by his younger siblings amid a £600,000 inheritance battle.
Robert Chung, 62, claims the family home was promised solely to him after he moved back with his parents and took work in a Job Centre to look after his father, Victor, who died in 1998, and then his mother, Irene Chung, until her death in 2016.
But his high-flying siblings – senior accountant Marina Bennett, 60, and IT manager Richard Chung, 58 – have claimed it was in fact their mother who looked after Robert for those 36 years, labelling him a ‘disappointment’ and a ‘financial drain’, and claiming all he did was watch television.
They insist he is a ‘pathological liar’ with a ‘grandiose view’ of himself, and that the extent of his involvement in the ‘film industry’ was actually just a job in a Blockbuster video shop.
The pair want the house and estate to be split three ways, with the showdown now playing out in court.
Central London County Court heard that Victor and Irene Chung brought up their three children in a three-bed detached home, now worth about £400,000, in South Woodford, east London.
Marina and Richard’s barrister, Faisel Sadiq, said that while the younger two had gone out and forged successful careers, Robert had proved to be a ‘disappointment’ and failed to properly fly the nest.
Although he moved out of the family home to Berkshire, he moved back in 1990, taking employment in a Job Centre and never again leaving his parents’ home.
Giving evidence, Robert told Judge Lawrence McDonald that he had only moved back home because he had been asked to, to provide care for his elderly parents.
After his father died of cancer, he was asked to stay on to look after his mother, who Robert said needed help with cooking and cleaning.
He said both his parents had promised that if he did so he would get the house, but that a will his mother drew up in his favour during her final days was not executed before her death in 2016.
As she died without a valid will, her estate was to be split three ways with his two siblings. This led to an eviction notice from the professional administrator of the estate, sparking Robert’s court fight for ownership of the house.
Representing himself, he said he had acted to his detriment in moving back home 36 years ago, leaving behind his ‘film industry’ job and hopes of a successful career to do his duty to his parents.
‘I didn’t want to end up working in a Job Centre, but that’s what I did for 22 years,’ he told the judge. ‘That’s a choice I made for my parents.’
Outside court, he said he had worked for Blockbusters, but had also written promotional copy for movies and worked in merchandising.
But Mr Sadiq said it was the younger siblings’ case that no promises were ever made about the house, and that it would have been out of character for their parents to have done so.
In fact, Robert’s parents did not need, nor receive, any care from their son, who had moved back in with them for his own reasons and become a ‘financial drain,’ the barrister said.
And Robert’s claim of moving back in because his father had been diagnosed with cancer was ‘simply untrue’ as the diagnosis was not until 1992.
Mr Sadiq said: ‘Our case is that you were the son that was a bit of a disappointment, who didn’t leave home and was financially dependent on his parents.’
‘Your parents had always wanted all three children to strike out on their own and get their own homes. Your coming back home was something of a disappointment to your father and your mother too.
‘Your father didn’t need or get any care from you at any point before he died. His cancer did not lead to him needing any care, save for the last month of his life.
‘Your mother didn’t need any help or care until the last couple of years. She remained the strong, determined woman she had been.
‘In fact it was the position that it was your mother who looked after you until the last year of her life.
‘She cooked your meals, did your laundry. When her health deteriorated, you didn’t provide her with the care she needed, did you?
‘You provided your mum with no care. You didn’t feed her, didn’t really deal with her dirty clothes, and you left the house a tip.’
Responding, Robert denied that, telling the judge he always made sure his mother’s clothes were clean and arranged her meals before he left for work.
In her evidence, Marina said she had been a regular visitor of her mother even after she emigrated to North America, but missed 2015 and had been shocked when she came home the following year.
‘I was horrified by what I saw,’ she said. ‘She had lost 30lbs in weight. For someone supposedly looking after mum, Robert Chung had failed.’
Prior to that, she had not seen her brother caring for their mother, she continued, accusing him of ‘just lounging in the living room watching movies non-stop, with mum doing everything around you.’
Describing him as a ‘pathological liar,’ she said that, if there had ever been promises that Robert could have the house, then he would have ‘moved heaven and earth’ to get them in writing.
‘Robert is different. He is not a nice person, highly manipulative, with an ability to lie,’ she said.
‘Robert has a grandiose view of his importance. He boasts he was self-employed when in reality he worked in a video store.
‘He said the other day he worked in Blockbusters.’
Addressing him directly, she added: ‘Mum and dad wanted you to live on your own and have your own house. They would have supported you in that respect, but everything I have seen so far doesn’t support a promise that you would have the house.’
Denying she hates her brother, Marina told the judge she instead ignores him, as she has done since she was a small child, because to dislike him ‘would require energy and emotion’.
But Robert told the judge that the evidence of his sister and brother should be treated with caution due to the obvious bad feeling between them, and the fact they will benefit financially if he doesn’t get the house.
Neither have direct knowledge of promises or the lack of them, because they were not there in the house with him at the time, he pointed out.
He said his sister ‘is not by any means a neutral witness,’ pointing to language in her 2019 statement, including ‘pathological liar’, ‘sociopath’, ‘parasite’, and ‘greed and jealousy’.
Robert’s lawyers said his bother, Richard, is ‘a beneficiary and plainly aligned against Robert’.
‘His later statement uses overtly hostile language, including “parasite” and “fundamentally lazy”,’ they added.
‘Marina doesn’t want me to have the house, she doesn’t want me to have a home,’ Robert told the judge. ‘She doesn’t care if I end up on the street.’
After a week in court, McDonald reserved his decision on the dispute until a later date.
The case has been brought by the professional administrator of Irene Chung’s estate, who is asking the judge to rule that Robert must leave the house so it can be sold and the proceeds divided up.
Robert is defending the possession claim, while counterclaiming for ownership of the house on the basis of the alleged promises made to him by his parents.
The administrator is also claiming almost £200,000 from Robert on behalf of the estate in rent for the years he has remained in the house since first being asked to leave after his mother’s death.
Amanda Smallcombe, Partner and Head of Private Wealth Disputes at Birketts LLP, said of the case: ‘Parents commonly talk to their children about what they might inherit upon their death.
‘However, for a promise relating to land or property to be legally binding, the person relying upon it needs to establish all the elements of a claim in proprietary estoppel; that a promise or assurance was made, was relied upon and it would be detrimental if not honoured.
‘These claims most commonly arise in farming families where land or a farm is promised in return for years of work for little or no renumeration.
‘This case, however, illustrates the same issues can arise in relation to a normal family home and will, perhaps, do so more frequently as care fees increase and children care for their parents in their own homes.
‘Rather unusually, the son is relying on proprietary estoppel as a defence to a claim for possession for the property and rent for his occupation of it which is pursued by the professional administrator of the estate rather than the other beneficiaries.
‘From an evidential perspective, a key issue for the court will be that the opposing siblings do not appear to have direct, first‑hand knowledge of the alleged promises made by the parents.
‘In cases of this kind, where assurances are said to have been private and informal, that absence of direct evidence can be highly significant.’
