Tibor Matyas, the former romantic and business partner of the late luxury man-bag designer Chris Liu, has told the High Court that his dog prevents him from working as he seeks maintenance payments from Liu's £1 million estate.
Background of the Dispute
Mr Matyas, 49, claims he was financially dependent on Mr Liu, who died from cancer in 2017 at the age of 47. Mr Liu, a graduate of the London College of Fashion, initially found success in womenswear, selling to high-end retailers such as Harvey Nichols and counting celebrities like Kylie Minogue and Sade among his clients, before specialising in designer man-bags. His estate, valued at over £1 million, is now at the centre of a legal battle involving Mr Matyas, Mr Liu's family in China, and the estate's administrator, Peter Daniel.
Property and Inheritance Details
Upon Mr Liu's death, Mr Matyas inherited a jointly owned flat in Thornbury Close, Dalston, worth £470,000, and a 25 per cent share of another flat in Atkins Square, valued at £400,000. The remaining properties, including a flat in Kinetica Apartments, were held solely in Mr Liu's name and form part of the estate. Mr Liu's 2015 will left most of his assets to his parents and brother, with only the quarter share of Atkins Square to Mr Matyas.
Court Proceedings
Mr Matyas is seeking a ruling under the 1975 Inheritance Act for reasonable financial provision, arguing he was dependent on Mr Liu and now struggles to meet daily expenses. In his written evidence, he stated: 'I was financially and emotionally dependent on Chris… I was maintained by him and financially dependent on him.' During questioning, Deputy Judge Andrew Scott asked why Mr Matyas could not find employment, to which he replied: 'I am also alone and looking after my dog and I have to take out the dog.'
His barrister, Aidan Briggs, added that Mr Matyas spends £3,800 annually on pet food, vets' bills and kennelling. Mr Matyas also told the court that at nearly 50, he can only find low-end full-time work, which would leave no time for entrepreneurial pursuits. He has significant debts, including legal fees, and prefers a regular income stream from the estate rather than a lump sum.
Alternative Claim and Family Opposition
Mr Matyas also brings an alternative claim for a constructive trust, arguing that properties in Mr Liu's sole name were intended to be jointly owned. He said the couple lived 'as though they were a married couple' and that properties were put in Mr Liu's name to placate his family in China, who were unaware of Mr Liu's sexuality. However, Timothy Evans, barrister for the estate administrator, argued that the properties were funded by Mr Liu's family and that Mr Matyas must prove he lived with the deceased as a married couple from April 2015. He also noted that Mr Matyas already received the Thornbury Close flat and that the interests of other beneficiaries must be considered.
The judge has reserved his ruling in the case.
