Financier sues over family fortune after millionaire dad ‘changed locks while he was on a run’
City’s former high-flyer, who left work to look after his frail mother – but was left homeless and destitute after a row with his 80-year-old millionaire father – is now fighting her in a £2million court battle.
Harry Lambert, 42, had a successful career as a private equity professional and rented a luxury flat in exclusive Canary Wharf when he returned home in 2023 to help care for his elderly mother at the request of his father, London’s High Court was told.
She says her father “promised to provide her with safe long-term accommodation” before she moved back to the family home in Buckingham Road, Redbridge.
But he says he started living “on the street” after tensions between him and his father (retired teacher Christopher Lambert) became so bad that his father changed the locks to prevent Harry from leaving the house while he went for a run.
After his mother was admitted to a care home, but before she died, she told a judge that Harry had been evicted and was now living in a council-run HMO flat and was unable to work due to his living conditions.
Christopher’s lawyer, Mina Heung, confirmed outside court that his father changing the locks on the house after going for a run was part of Harry’s case.
She is now suing her father for some of the wealth her parents acquired, claiming her mother left assets worth around £2 million, forcing him to send her back to the family home to live.
But his father, who inherited all of Ms Lambert’s money upon her death, strongly disputes how much Harry says the family fortune is worth and denies making any promises that his son would be “taken care of” financially.
Judge Richard Farnhill heard Harry claimed his father had turned against him in a conflict between them after the retired teacher allegedly sold one of the family properties in Clementine Walk, Woodford Green, without transferring any of the profits to his son as promised.
Harry insists that by returning home he lost his earnings, gave up a solid tenancy and then contributed to household expenses while helping care for his mother, and in return was assured that he would be “taken care of” financially.
In June 2025, Harry’s mother Maureen, who has dementia, was admitted to a care home and shortly afterwards in August his father changed the locks on the front door and moved him away from the family home in Buckingham Road.
The court heard Maureen died the following month and left all her property to her husband in her will.
Harry claims that after he was fired, he temporarily lived “on the street” before moving into a council-run mixed-use flat, where he currently remains.
The “poor” former financier is now suing his elderly father in a bid to secure some of the fortune he says he was promised and win the right to return home.
“I want to go back to my house and my bed, where I’ve lived for 20 months, which has been my family’s home for 40 years,” he told the judge.
“I currently live in an HMO flat in Dagenham with no Wi-Fi and therefore no ability to do a job that relies on internet access.
“I don’t earn and am on universal credit; my earning capacity of £100,000 a year has fallen into poverty.
“I can’t even eat most nights.”
Harry is seeking a court order that he owns a 50 per cent share of the Buckingham Road property, as well as claiming “estate-wide” freehold rights over family assets.
His father’s failure to share profits from the sale of the Clementine Walk property “caused serious friction between Harry and his father, and soon after this their relationship began to deteriorate,” the judge told the court as he drafted Harry’s case.
“In February 2025, his father told Harry to leave the property, but he did not do so. Over the next few months, Christopher Lambert installed locks on internal doors, keeping his son away from areas such as the kitchen.”
While a hearing on Harry’s claim to family money is pending, his case has reached court as he applies for an interim order allowing his father to have “exclusive” use of the house should he have to leave, or an alternative order requiring him to fund his father’s accommodation to the tune of £3,500 a month.
“I demand the return of the property and the removal of my father because we cannot live together,” he told the judge.
“He was away from the property most of the time, traveling abroad, but my backup position is that he should cover the costs of temporary accommodation for me until the hearing.”
Ms Heung argued on behalf of the father that it would be “cruel” to be banned from his own home for 40 years and rejected Harry’s claim that he could go to another property his father owns at Cheyne Court in Woodford Green.
He argued that Harry’s application had been branded “intrusive”: “it seeks not only to enter the property but to occupy it as his sole or primary residence and to exclude his father from his own home.”
“The relationship between the parties has seriously deteriorated,” he continued.
“Harry’s own evidence includes family conflict, police intervention, anti-harassment cases, criminal allegations, lockouts, banishments, protection claims and disputed financial matters.
“A mandatory order reinstating Harry in the profession and excluding his legal owner is likely to lead to further disputes and appeals.
“Harry says his father could live at Cheyne Court or be abroad. That’s not an answer.
“The claim that other property exists does not entitle him to occupy his father’s house – nor does his father’s occasional travel abroad mean that the property has been abandoned.”
The lawyer also said the father “refuses to make any express, binding or irrevocable promise to give Harry ownership rights over any property or assets.”
Ms Heung confirmed outside the court that it was part of Harry’s case that his father changed the locks on the house after he went for a run.
After two hours in court, the judge rejected Harry’s application to remove his father from the property and move back in, and also rejected an order that he cover his son’s rent.
But he ordered the hearing on Harry’s wider claim to be heard as soon as possible and said he should be given access to Buckingham Road to recover property he claimed was worth tens of thousands of pounds, including a collection of rare plants.
