Siblings Engaged in Bitter £600,000 Inheritance Court Battle
Three siblings are locked in a fierce legal confrontation over a £600,000 inheritance, with accusations flying that one brother acted as a 'parasite' who leeched off their elderly parents for thirty-six years. The dispute centers on a family home in South Woodford, East London, now valued at approximately £400,000, with the total estate worth around £600,000.
Brother's Claim of Sacrifice and Promise
Robert Chung, aged sixty-two, asserts that the three-bedroom detached house in Mulberry Way was promised solely to him after he abandoned what he describes as a 'well-paid' position in the film industry. He moved back into the family home in 1990 to provide care for his parents, Victor and Irene Chung.
Robert testified at Central London County Court that he sacrificed his career prospects, subsequently working at a Job Centre for more than two decades while first tending to his father, who had cancer and passed away in 1998, and then his mother until her death in 2016. He claims both parents assured him the property would be his if he undertook this caregiving role.
Siblings' Counter-Allegations of Dependency
His siblings, senior accountant Marina Bennett, sixty, and IT manager Richard Chung, fifty-eight, present a starkly different narrative. They contend that Robert was in fact a 'disappointment' and a 'financial drain' on their parents, with their mother primarily looking after him rather than the reverse.
Marina and Richard insist their brother is a 'pathological liar' with a 'grandiose view' of himself. They dispute his claims of a film industry career, suggesting his involvement was limited to employment at a Blockbuster video shop, though Robert later clarified outside court he also wrote promotional copy and worked in merchandising.
Faisel Sadiq, representing Marina and Richard, argued in court: '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.'
Contradictory Accounts of Care Provided
The court heard conflicting testimonies regarding the level of care Robert provided. Robert maintained he assisted with cooking, cleaning, and ensuring his mother's clothes were laundered. However, Marina described visiting in 2016 to find her mother had lost thirty pounds, accusing Robert of failure.
'I was horrified by what I saw,' Marina testified. 'For someone supposedly looking after mum, Robert Chung had failed. Prior to that, he was just lounging in the living room watching movies non-stop, with mum doing everything around you.'
Mr. Sadiq further challenged Robert's claim that he moved back due to his father's cancer diagnosis, noting the diagnosis occurred in 1992, two years after his return. The barrister asserted that neither parent required significant care until the final stages of their lives, and that Irene Chung largely cared for Robert until her health declined.
Legal Stakes and Financial Demands
The crux of the legal battle stems from Irene Chung dying without a valid will in 2016. Under intestacy rules, her estate is to be divided equally among her three children. This prompted the professional administrator of the estate to issue an eviction notice to Robert, who has remained in the property.
Robert is defending against a possession claim while counterclaiming for ownership based on the alleged promises. The administrator is also seeking nearly £200,000 from Robert for rent accrued since he was first asked to vacate after his mother's death.
Marina and Richard advocate for the house to be sold and the proceeds split three ways. Marina denied personal animosity, stating she simply ignores Robert, as disliking him 'would require energy and emotion.' Robert, however, argued his siblings' testimonies are biased due to potential financial gain and existing familial tensions.
Awaiting Judicial Decision
After a week of proceedings before Judge Lawrence McDonald, the court has reserved its decision for a later date. The judge must weigh the conflicting evidence regarding oral promises, the nature of care provided, and the credibility of each sibling's account.
This case highlights the complex emotional and financial fractures that can emerge within families over inheritance, particularly when expectations based on verbal assurances clash with legal realities following a death without a formal will.
