Claim Against China-Domiciled Partner’s Estate Fails

Katie de Swarte

Claim against estate of wealthy China-domiciled partner fails

If a claim for reasonable financial provision against an estate is made after 6 months from the date of the grant of representation, the court will consider the reasons for the delay before deciding whether to allow the claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

In a recent case, the deceased’s partner deliberately delayed bringing proceedings to slow down the administration of the estate. It was already a complex and long-running dispute in which he also claimed a 50% share in two estate properties.

Anyone who wishes to make a claim against a loved one’s estate should take prompt action to protect their legal rights. Executors presented with such claims should consider whether robust steps can be taken to settle the claim out of court or, if necessary, strike out the claim if it is unmeritorious.

What’s the background?

In Matyas v Lui & ors [2026] EWHC 1368, Huan Li was a Chinese fashion designer who adopted the name ‘Chris’ when he moved to London. He died of cancer in April 2017 aged 47. His partner, Tibor Matyas, claimed that they lived together as if they were married and that personally and professionally they operated as a single “indivisible unit”, sharing income and property equally.

Chris owned two London flats purchased in his sole name and jointly owned a third property with Tibor. In his Will, Chris left his two properties to close family members and his residuary estate to his parents.

Tibor sued the estate, arguing that he had a 50% beneficial interest in the two properties held in Chris’s sole name. He also claimed reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act for his maintenance – though this was out of time by several months.

The judge rejected both claims.

The properties

Tibor relied on an express understanding between him and Chris that the properties were to be owned jointly. However, the parties’ conduct and the clear contemporaneous evidence did not reveal any such intention or common understanding – whether actual, inferred or imputed.

Alternatively, Tibor claimed that his contributions to the purchases from their allegedly joint income from Chris’s consultancy business meant that he had a 50% beneficial interest in them. Furthermore, he argued that their finances were “closely intertwined” and did not reflect the legal structures.

The judge concluded that Tibor had neither contributed financially to the purchases, nor proved that he jointly ran the company with Chris. For instance, Chris had several bank accounts and a credit card in his sole name, he had loaned Tibor money (some of which was repaid) and Tibor also had his own bank accounts. Chris was also the sole director and shareholder of his consultancy business and was its creative influence. The other company, Chris and Tibor Ltd, was not involved in the purchases.

The inheritance claim

Apart from Tibor’s maintenance claim being ridiculously late – nine years after Chris’s death – it was hopeless from the start. The essential criteria for establishing a claim under the 1975 Act were not satisfied:

1. Chris was not domiciled in England and Wales – either by origin or by choice.
2. The parties had not lived together in the same household as a married couple for at least two years.
3. Chris had provided Tibor with reasonable financial provision for his maintenance under his Will.
4. It was not appropriate to allow Tibor’s claim out of time, as doing so would reward conduct sustained over a nine-year period. Tibor’s conduct had been deliberately designed to delay the administration of the estate.

Tibor had been “playing for time” and was “the author of his own misfortune”.

What does this mean?

This case highlights several issues, including the potential uncertainties for cohabitees who believe they are entitled to their partner’s estate on death; and the potential for executors to be involved in long-running disputes prompted by claims with little merit.

Get in touch

Although most claims do not reach a trial, it may become unavoidable where the parties cannot or will not resolve disputes with negotiation or mediation. If you are involved in a probate dispute, it is vital to consider discussing the matter with experienced contentious probate solicitors before taking further steps. For expert advice contact the specialist team at Osbornes Law by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811