London’s High Court rejected Tibor Matyas’s bid for a greater portion of the late luxury handbag designer Chris Liu’s £1 million estate. The judge concluded Liu never presented their partnership as unequivocally marital, a prerequisite for claims under the 1975 Inheritance Act.

Judge Rules Liu’s Relationship Not ‘Akin to Marriage’

Deputy Judge Andrew Scott found that Liu’s public portrayal of his bond with Matyas was mixed – sometimes appearing as a business alliance, other times as a personal partnership.. because English law requires a relationship to be openly and permanently displayed as marital, the court said Matyas failed to meet that threshold.

£400,000 Atkins Square Flat Only Portion Matyas Retains

Liu’s 2015 will left a quarter share of the £400,000 Atkins Square flat to Matyas, while the remaining two Dalston properties reverted to Liu’s parents and brother in China. The judge noted that the £470,000 Thornbury Close flat already passed to Matyas by joint ownership, but the other assets were not subject to his claim.

Inheritance Act 1975 Claim Stymied by Lack of Public Proof

Matyas argued he was financially dependent on Liu and that they lived together for over two years as a married couple.. however, as the report states, “to qualify as a spouse under the 1975 Act, Matyas needed to prove they had lived openly as a married couple for at least two years before death.” The court determined that Liu’s inconsistent presentation undermined that proof.

Family Funding of Property Portfolio Raises Questions

Representing the estate, barrister Timothy Evans highlighted that Liu’s family in China financed the Kinetica flat purchase , suggesting the properties were not solely the product of the partners’ joint earnings.. this financial link to Liu’s relatives further weakened Matyas’s claim of a wholly shared enterprise.

What Remains Unclear About Matyas’s Financial Future?

The judgment leaves Matyas with the quarter share of Atkins Square and the Thornbury Close flat , but his broader financial needs – estimated at £3,800 annually for housing, income and pet costs – remain unmet. The court did not address whether Matyas might pursue a separate civil partnership claim or appeal the decision.