Dead millionaire designer's partner SUES after claiming £500,000 luxury flat from will wasn't enough
The partner of a top bag designer - who says he needs financial support as his dog stops him working - is fighting a court battle over his £1million will after being left a £500,000 flat.Tibor Matyas believes he is entitled to maintenance payments from the his "romantic and business partner" fashion guru Chris Liu's estate, claiming he is jobless and struggling with pet care costs. He claims he was "dependent" on the designer for money, and is now fighting for "maintenance" payments from his estate.Mr Liu started out as a womenswear designer, selling creations to high-end stores like Harvey Nichols, and had a roster of celebrity clients including Kylie Minogue. He later specialised in bags for men. He died after a cancer diagnosis in 2017 aged 47, leaving behind a £1 million-plus estate, which is now at the centre of a tug of war between Matyas, Mr Liu's family in China and the administrator of his estate.READ MORE: Man, 92, charged with murder of 87-year-old woman found dead in Exeter houseREAD MORE: Man 'sexually assaults woman on flight' to Australia - then asks court to stay in AirbnbWhen the designer died, Matyas, 49, who worked alongside him on the management and marketing side of their label Chris and Tibor, received a jointly owned £470,000 London apartment and a 25 per cent share of another London flat, with the rest going to Mr Liu's family in China. He is now suing for "reasonable provision" from the estate, claiming he was financially dependent on Mr Liu and telling a judge he struggles to work due to looking after his dog.Matyas and Mr Liu both worked as design consultants for Burberry before setting up their label Chris and Tibor in 2005. The High Court heard that on top of their fashion business, a property portfolio was also purchased, with three flats in Dalston, east London. The High Court heard that Matyas and Mr Liu's brother Pu Liu were initially made joint executors of his estate, but were replaced by a professional executor after a seven-year battle erupted between Matyas and Liu's partner's parents De Heng Liu and Xuan Rong Yang.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 which fuelled the property purchases came from them, and Matyas' claim is also being opposed in court by the administrator of the estate, Peter Daniel. Maytas is seeking a judge's ruling under the 1975 Inheritance Act for "reasonable financial provision" out of the estate, claiming he was dependent financially and will struggle to meet day to day expenses without receiving more.From the witness box, Matyas told how he struggled to get his career back on track after his partner's death, despite previously taking on work as a chef to keep his head above water. In written evidence he said: "I was financially and emotionally dependent on Chris, I was maintained by him and financially dependent on him."Deputy Judge Andrew Scott asked why Matyas "can't find employment" as someone who seems to be an "intelligent, capable and together person now". Speaking to the deputy judge, Matyas said: "I am also alone and looking after my dog and I have to take out the dog."Aidan Briggs, representing Matyas, added that he spends £3,800 annually on pet food, vets' bills and kennelling. Matyas said that with a successful career behind him he is now trying hard to get back into working as an entrepreneur, which takes time to plan, adding that as well as having to care for his canine companion, at the age of almost 50 finding work is a struggle."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," he said. The court heard Matyas also has significant debt, 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 claiming the properties - all in Dalston, East London - should be shared equally between him and the estate on the basis of a "constructive trust" despite being in his partner's sole name. 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".Their flat in Kinetica Apartments was bought with funds from their pair's company, although "by a circuitous route," according to Matyas. But he said he and Mr Liu ended up putting it solely in Mr Liu's name to placate his family in China as "he had never been open about his sexuality" and they believed Matyas was simply Mr Liu's business partner. Matyas said: "My name couldn't be on the property due to pressure from Chris' family."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 then applied when the couple acquired their flat in Atkins Square, claims Mr Matyas, with the funds coming from both of them but with only Mr Liu registered as an owner. But Timothy Evans, barrister for the estate administrator Peter Daniel who is opposing the claim, said the evidence showed the property purchases were funded by Liu's family, claiming that the cash used to acquire the Kinetica flat "derived from payments made to the deceased from China".In relation to the reasonable provision claim, he said that to succeed Mr Matyas 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," and "must show that the will failed in all the circumstances, looked at today, to make reasonable financial provision for him." 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 around £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.
