Tibor Matyas v Peter Daniel & Ors

A claimant seeking a beneficial interest under a common intention constructive trust must prove the parties’ shared intention, assessed in light of their whole course of conduct, and must show detrimental reliance. Legal title, financial contributions, management responsibilities and relationship evidence must be evaluated together.

For a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, the applicant must satisfy the statutory eligibility conditions, establish that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for maintenance, and obtain permission for any late application. A lengthy and deliberate delay in estate administration, coupled with an unparticularised and unserved claim, may justify refusal of permission.

The claimant, Tibor Matyas, claimed a 50% beneficial interest in two London properties registered in the sole name of Chris Liu, his deceased life and business partner. He also sought financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, together with permission to proceed out of time.

The estate administrator resisted the beneficial interest claim and adopted a neutral position on the statutory claim. The court had to determine whether Matyas had established a common intention constructive trust, whether Liu was domiciled in England and Wales, whether they had lived in the same household as a married couple or civil partners, whether reasonable financial provision had been made, and whether the late application should be permitted.

1. Beneficial interests. The claim to beneficial ownership of Kinetica and Atkins Square was dismissed. Applying Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 A.C. 432, the court assessed the parties’ actual, inferred or imputed intentions in the light of their whole course of conduct. The claimant had not proved an express agreement, common intention or financial contribution. The documentary evidence showed that the deceased funded both purchases from accounts in his sole name, described both properties as his own, and deliberately retained sole legal ownership.
2. The claimant’s management of the properties, access to a bank account under a power of attorney, joint expenditure and role in the businesses did not establish beneficial ownership or substantial detrimental reliance. The joint ownership of Thornbury was materially different and did not demonstrate indifference to legal title.
3. Statutory eligibility. The deceased was not shown to have acquired a domicile of choice in England and Wales. His continuing and substantial connections with China and New Zealand, together with the absence of clear, cogent and compelling evidence of an intention directed exclusively towards England and Wales, meant that his domicile of origin had not been displaced.
4. The claimant and deceased had been in a loving relationship, but the statutory requirement of living in the same household as a married couple or civil partners was not met. The relationship had to be one of mutual lifetime commitment, openly and unequivocally displayed to the outside world. The deceased’s descriptions of the claimant as a business partner, his statements that he was single, separate residential addresses, single-occupancy representations and secrecy from his family outweighed the contrary evidence.
5. Maintenance. Applying the two-stage approach in Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17, the will made reasonable financial provision for maintenance. The claimant was young, employable, in good health at the date of death, and inherited substantial property. His later financial difficulties were substantially attributable to his own conduct in the estate litigation.
6. Extension of time. Permission under section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975 was refused. The claimant had delayed for years, failed to particularise the claim, issued and failed to serve an earlier claim, ignored advice concerning service out of the jurisdiction, and was responsible for the resulting prejudice and delay. The claim was dismissed on the merits in any event.