Entrepreneur Tibor Matyas loses court battle over £1m fortune after judge rules late partner Chris Liu’s family ‘mattered more’ to him

The partner of a millionaire men’s bag designer has lost a High Court case over his late partner’s £1million fortune after the judge concluded the fashion guru’s family was “more important” to him.

Tibor Matyas, described as Chris Liu’s “romantic and business partner”, had sought maintenance from Mr Liu’s estate, which includes two valuable flats in trendy Dalston, east London.

Mr Matyas insisted that they lived together as a “married couple” for at least the last two years of Mr Liu’s life, and claimed that the properties were in Mr Liu’s sole name because his family in China was unaware of his sexual orientation.

Mr Liu, who died of cancer in 2017, initially built a successful career in womenswear for high-end retailers such as Harvey Nichols and celebrity clients such as Kylie Minogue and Sade, then specialized in stylish men’s bags.

But Deputy Judge Andrew Scott, ruling at the High Court in London, ruled against Mr Matyas.

He said Mr Liu had no “obligation or responsibility” to provide for his partner upon his death, bequeathing most of his fortune to his Chinese family “who were more important to him”.

And while Mr. Matyas viewed the relationship as “marriage-like,” Mr. Liu was more “sceptical” about what that actually meant, presenting it as a marriage-like relationship to some and a business relationship to others.

“In order to be considered a married couple or civil partnership, it is essential that the relationship be openly and clearly displayed to the outside world so that society accepts it as a permanent intention,” the judge said.

The court heard that Mr Matyas, who studied art management and marketing, and Mr Liu, a London College of Fashion graduate, worked as design consultants for Burberry before the Chris and Tibor men’s bag label was founded in 2005.

As well as the fashion business, a property portfolio has been acquired, with three flats purchased at 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 passed to his estate.

He will leave almost everything to his parents and brother in China, except for a quarter share of the £400,000 Atkins Square property that went to Mr Matyas in 2015.

In court, Mr Matyas sought an order granting “reasonable financial consideration” from the estate under the Inheritance Act 1975, claiming he was “dependent” on his designer boyfriend.

He told the judge that their relationship was similar to that of a married couple and that they lived that way for more than two years until Mr. Liu’s death.

He insisted that he and Mr. Liu understood that the properties were jointly owned and that they lived together “as if they were a married couple,” emphasizing that “our joint income came from the same source; neither Chris nor I had any independent business ventures.”

When it came to purchasing their flat at Kinetica Apartments, the funding came from the company, but only in Mr Liu’s name because he “has never been open about his sexuality” and his family in China believed Mr Matyas was just his business partner.

“Due to pressure from Chris’ family, my name was not included in the property,” he said.

Following his partner’s death, he said he struggled to get his career back on track, although he had previously started working as a chef to keep his head above water.

He is now trying hard to get back to working as an entrepreneur; Finding a job at almost 50 is a huge struggle.

The court heard he also had significant debts, including legal bills arising from the fight, and wanted his financial needs to be met from the estate through a steady stream of income.

He told the judge he had multiple needs, including income and accommodation, as well as pet food, vet bills and his dog’s kennel, costing him £3,800 a year.

But Timothy Evans, a lawyer for estate manager Peter Daniel, said the property purchases were financed by Mr Liu’s family and that the cash used to buy the Kinetica flat was “obtained from payments from China for the deceased”.

The judge who made the decision said that in order to claim rights as spouses under the Inheritance Act 1975, Mr Matyas had to show that they had clearly been living as a “married couple” for at least two years before death.

“My overall assessment of the evidence is that Chris’ family was more important to him than Mr Matyas,” he said.

“Although there is some evidence to suggest that Chris and Mr Matyas were living together as a married couple, my view is that the balance of the evidence in my possession is not consistent with that conclusion.

“I am certain that Mr. Matyas was having an affair with Chris, and I am also certain that from Mr. Matyas’ point of view he probably compared it to marriage.

“But marriage is necessarily between two people, and it seems to me that Chris was more vague about that relationship.

“Chris presented his relationship with his family as that of a business colleague and has consistently done the same in his correspondence with his lawyers, including publicly discussing his will, which he executed over a two-year period.

“The presentation of his dealings with public authorities was that of individuals living apart, not together. Chris brought Mr Matyas into his company, but only in a sales-oriented, administrative capacity. Chris was the sole shareholder and director of the company and ensured that, upon his death, the shares went to his family rather than to Mr Matyas.”

“Chris consciously kept most of his residences in his own name.

“There is some evidence that the relationship was presented to a relatively limited number of people as equivalent to marriage, but when considered together with the other evidence, it is not sufficient to satisfy me that Chris and Mr Matyas lived together in the same house as a married couple during the relevant two-year period.”

It also found that Tibor was able to fend for himself financially at the time of Mr. Liu’s death and did not need any additional assistance.

“Mr Matyas was only 39 when Chris died. He had a lot going for him in terms of his employment in the labor market,” he said.

“He had experience in the field of information technologies. He had significant experience in the fashion world. He had shown that he could operate in sales or marketing. He could hold managerial or administrative positions.

“In my view, Chris was able to live independently when he died and get by just fine without any distribution from the estate.

“Despite this considerable property, he was able to earn a good living through his own efforts. In short, he was in an enviable financial and professional position.

“In my view, it was Chris who, in part, created the value of the businesses he ran with Mr. Matyas. The funding for the acquisition of Kinetica and Atkins Square is unclear, but what is clear in my view is that Mr. Matyas did not contribute financially to either. However, in his will, Chris generously provided for a quarter of Atkins Square to pass to Mr. Matyas on his death.”

“I do not think Chris had any obligation or responsibility to Mr Matyas. They did not live together as a married couple. Chris gave Mr Matyas a significant portion of his assets at the date of his death. By doing so, in my view he acted generously towards Mr Matyas.”

“But Chris clearly took his obligations to 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 murky circumstances his family was also involved in Chris’ purchase of Kinetica and Atkins Square.”

“Having regard to these matters, I consider that Chris will provide financial consideration that will be reasonable under all the circumstances for what Mr. Matyas must receive to support himself.”