The partner of a millionaire man-bag designer has lost a High Court battle over his late partner’s £1m fortune, after a judge concluded the fashion guru’s family “mattered more” to him.
Tibor Matyas, described as Chris Liu’s “romantic and business partner”, had sought maintenance from Mr Liu’s estate, which included two valuable flats in trendy Dalston, east London.
Mr Matyas insisted they had lived together as a “married couple” for at least the final two years of Mr Liu’s life, claiming properties were in Mr Liu’s sole name because his family in China were unaware of his sexuality.
Mr Liu, who died of cancer in 2017, built a successful career, initially in womenswear for high-end outlets like Harvey Nichols and celebrity clients including Kylie Minogue and Sade, before specialising in chic man-bags.
However, Deputy Judge Andrew Scott, delivering judgment at London’s High Court, has ruled against Mr Matyas.
He said that Mr Liu had no “obligation or responsibility” to provide for his partner upon his death, having bequeathed the majority of his wealth to his Chinese family, who “mattered to him more”.
And while Mr Matyas considered the relationship “akin to a marriage”, Mr Liu had been more “equivocal” about what it really meant, presenting it to some as like a marriage, but to others as a business relationship.
“In order to be regarded as living as a married couple or civil partners, it is essential that the relationship must be openly and unequivocally displayed to the outside world so that society considers it to be of permanent intent,” said the judge.
The court heard Mr Matyas – who studied art management and marketing – and London College of Fashion graduate Mr Liu had both worked as design consultants for Burberry before the man-bag label Chris and Tibor was set up in 2005.
On top of the fashion business, a property portfolio was purchased, with three flats acquired in Kinetica Apartments, Thornbury Close and Atkins Square, all in Dalston, east London.
After his death, the £470,000 flat in Thornbury Close automatically passed to Mr Matyas as it was in both their names, but the other two properties were held in Mr Liu’s sole name and went into his estate.
His 2015 will left almost everything to his parents and brother in China, apart from a quarter share of the £400,000 Atkins Square property, which went to Mr Matyas.
In court, Mr Matyas sought a ruling under the 1975 Inheritance Act for “reasonable financial provision” out of the estate, claiming he had been “dependent” on his designer boyfriend.
He told the judge that their relationship had been akin to that of a married couple and that they had lived that way for more than two years up to the date of Mr Liu’s death.
He insisted that he and Mr Liu always understood the properties were jointly owned, that they lived together “as though they were a married couple”, and insisted: “our joint income originated from the same source, neither Chris nor I had any independent business ventures”.
When it came to buying their flat in Kinetica Apartments, the funds came from the company, but it went into Mr Liu’s name alone as “he had never been open about his sexuality” and his family in China believed Mr Matyas was simply his business partner.
“My name couldn’t be on the property due to pressure from Chris’ family,” he said.
Following his partner’s death, he said he had struggled to get his career back on track, despite previously taking on work as a chef to keep his head above water.
He is now trying hard to get back into working as an entrepreneur, at the age of almost 50 finding work is a struggle.
The court heard that he also has significant debts, including legal bills from the fight, and wanted his financial needs to be met from the estate through a regular income stream.
He told the judge he has multiple needs, including for income and housing, as well as pet food, vets’ bills and kennelling for his dog, which costs him £3,800 a year.
But Timothy Evans, barrister for the estate administrator Peter Daniel, said the property purchases were funded by Mr Liu’s family and that the cash used to acquire the Kinetica flat “derived from payments made to the deceased from China”.
Giving judgment, the judge said that in order to have standing to make a claim as a spouse under the 1975 Inheritance Act, Mr Matyas would have to show they lived openly as a “married couple” for at least two years prior to death.
“My assessment of the evidence overall is that Chris’ family mattered to him more than Mr Matyas did,” he said.
“Although there is some evidence that suggests that Chris and Mr Matyas were living together as a married couple, my view is that the balance of the evidence before me is not consistent with that conclusion.
“I am confident that Mr Matyas was in a relationship with Chris and I am also sure that, from Mr Matyas’s perspective, he most likely regarded it as akin to marriage.
“However, a marriage is necessarily between two persons and it seems to me that Chris was more equivocal about the relationship.
“Chris presented the relationship to his family as one of business colleagues and consistently did the same in correspondence with his solicitors, including expressly in his discussions for his will executed in the two-year period.
“The presentation of their relationship to public authorities was of persons living separately, not together. Chris involved Mr Matyas in his company, but only in a sales-focused, managerial capacity. Chris was the sole shareholder and director of the company and provided for the shares to go to his family, rather than Mr Matyas, on his death.
“Chris consciously kept much of his residential property in his sole name.
“There is some evidence that the relationship was presented to a relatively limited number of people as equivalent to one of marriage but, weighed against the other evidence, it is not enough to satisfy me that, throughout the relevant two-year period, Chris and Mr Matyas lived together in the same household as a married couple.”
He also found that, at the time that Mr Liu died, Tibor was capable of looking after himself financially and needed no additional assistance.
“At the time of Chris’s death, Mr Matyas was only 39 years old. He had many strings to his bow from the point of view of his employment in the labour market,” he said.
“He had experience in information technology. He had significant experience in the fashion world. He had shown that he could act in sales or in marketing. He could act in a managerial or administrative capacity.
“In my view, he was, at the time of Chris’s death, capable of living independently and could manage perfectly well without any distribution from the estate.
“He could earn a good living from his own efforts irrespective of this significant property holding. In short, he was financially and professionally in an enviable position.
“It was Chris who, in my view, had created the value of the businesses he carried on in part with Mr Matyas. The funding for the purchases of Kinetica and Atkins Square is obscure but what is clear, in my view, is that Mr Matyas made no financial contribution to either. Nonetheless, Chris generously provided in his will for a quarter of Atkins Square to be passed to Mr Matyas on his death.
“I do not consider that Chris had any obligation or responsibility towards Mr Matyas. They did not live together as a married couple. Chris gave to Mr Matyas a significant proportion of the assets he owned at the date of his death. In so doing, he acted, in my view, generously towards Mr Matyas.
“However, Chris clearly did take his obligations towards his Chinese family very seriously. He was close to them. He spent time in China. He helped his father buy a property in China. In somewhat obscure circumstances, his family was also involved in Chris’ purchases of Kinetica and Atkins Square.
“Taking account of those matters, I consider that Chris’ will made such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for Mr Matyas to receive for his maintenance.”
