Multi-millionaire couple WIN case against ‘devious little sod’ nephew they accused of ‘stealing’ their £4m Kensington mews home – as he’s now left facing £150,000 bill
A multi-millionaire couple who accused their ‘devious little sod’ of a nephew of stealing their £4million Kensington mews house have won their court fight with him – and landed him with a £150,000 bill.
Self-made electronics tycoon Michael Lee and his wife King-Su Huang sued Cheng-Jen Ku after their nephew claimed the swanky three-bed home in Queen’s Gate Place Mews was his, not theirs.
The couple in their 70s had bought the home in Mr Ku’s name in 2004 because they did not want the extent of their wealth to be publicly known, Central London County Court heard.
Mr Ku, 40, had initially lived there but later claimed he was the true owner of the house and that it had been ‘gifted’ to him in line with Taiwanese tradition by his rich auntie. But he told Judge Alan Johns he had later moved out of the multimillion pound house ‘because he auntie and uncle were too strict’.
In his ruling, the judge said that Mr Ku could not have been the owner of the home as he had claimed. He said his behaviour ‘didn’t look like the actions of an owner’ and handed him a £150,000 court bill.
The exclusive cobbled mews close to the Royal Albert Hall was once the epicentre of the world’s classic car trade and the site from which motor racing legend Alain De Cadenet ran his Le Mans team. Among their neighbours is Chariots of Fire producer Sir David Puttnam.
Michael Lee (pictured), 79, and wife King-Su Huang, 73, sued their ‘devious’ nephew after he claimed ownership of their house
King-Su Huang (pictured) and her husband said there had been a clear understanding that, despite being in their nephew’s name, she was the true owner, with her nephew holding it on trust for her
Cheng-Jen Ku (pictured), 40, a ‘close’ nephew whom Mr Lee had been fond of as a ‘cute little kid’, had lived with the couple in their £1m-plus Essex former home after moving to the UK from Taiwan
The wealthy couple are locked in a bitter court row with their ‘devious’ nephew over claims he stole their £4million house (pictured) in a celebrity millionaires’ row
Businessman Mr Lee, who made his fortune through a £13million Essex electronics company, met his wife while working in Taiwan and later channelled his cash into a property portfolio.
When he and his wife found the property in Queen’s Gate Place Mews, just a short walk from the Royal Albert Hall and Natural History Museum, they decided to snap it up.
The Victorian mews was built between 1866 and 1869 to provide stables for the grand houses on nearby Queen’s Gate and is accessed through a Grade-II Listed archway.
Mr Ku, a ‘close’ nephew whom Mr Lee had been fond of as a ‘cute little kid’, had lived with the couple in their £1million-plus Essex former home after moving to the UK from Taiwan.
Mr Lee told the judge that his wife handed their nephew £1.57million to buy the house in his name, explaining that it was for ‘privacy’ reasons and to prevent the property being called on as collateral for business loans they wanted to put it in Mr Ku’s name.
It is now worth more than twice the price that was paid, with lawyers valuing it at up to £4million.
Mr Ku became its registered owner, initially living there, though his aunt and uncle also had keys and a room in the house. But he later went on to claim the house was his because it was ‘gifted’ to him by his aunt, which Mr Lee described as ‘piffle’ by Mr Lee in evidence during the trial.
The couple became neighbours with Chariots of Fire producer Lord Puttnam when they purchased the home. Pictured is Lord Puttnam celebrating his Oscar win with the late Hugh Hudson in 1982
Mr Cheng (pictured) claims the house belongs to him because it was ‘gifted’ to him by his aunt – a claim blasted as ‘piffle’ by Mr Lee at Central London County Court
Mrs Huang sued her nephew – backed by her husband as a key witness – for a ruling that, despite being in his name, she was always the rightful owner.
Mr Lee told the judge that his nephew had gone from being ‘a cute little kid’ nicknamed ‘Trouble’ to become ‘mean and nasty’ in adulthood.
‘He is trying to steal our house because he has turned out to be a devious little sod and that’s why we’re in court,’ he said from the witness box.
Mrs Huang’s barrister Rupert Cohen told the judge there had been a clear understanding that, despite being in their nephew’s name, she was the true owner, with her nephew holding it on trust for her.
‘Mrs Huang claims that she and her nephew agreed, prior to the purchase of the property, that the property be registered in his name, but that the beneficial interest would be hers, and she provided the entire purchase price of the property,’ he said.
She and her husband paid all the bills owing for the house and claimed her nephew only ever used the property ‘with her consent’.
However, Mr Ku’s barrister, Scott Redpath, claimed the clear intention was to ‘give this property to him’.
Ruling against the nephew, Judge Johns said: ‘The case for Mrs Huang was that the house was held for her on trust.
‘Mr Ku’s position was that there was no agreement and no trust because the intention was to make a gift of the mews house to him and that in Taiwanese culture such gifting was normal.
‘Where a property is put into the name of one party solely, the first issue is whether the other party was intended to have any interest at all.
‘When a land is conveyed to one person, but another person provides the money, there is a a presumption that there is a resulting trust in favour of the paying party unless it can be shown there was an intention to make a gift or loan.
‘I’ve reached a clear conclusion that the intention in this case was for the mews house to be owned by Mrs Huang. Indeed there was an express agreement to that effect.
The judge stated: ‘The true owner was Mrs Huang. The motivation was privacy and a gift was not intended. I make a declaration that the mews house is held in trust by Mr Ku for Mrs Huang’
‘There was an express discussion over the telephone before the house was purchased in which she said she wanted to buy a property but use Mr Ku’s name. He agreed.
‘As understood by the parties, it was an arrangement not that the mews house was to be Mr Ku’s but was to be Mrs Huang’s and just to be held in Mr Ku’s name. Mr Ku accepted in cross-examination that Mrs Huang hid wealth by using the names of family members. In correspondence, Mr Ku at no time asserted that the house had been a gift to him.
‘It was understood by the trustee and the beneficial owner that the trustee had no beneficial interest in the property.’
The judge said the couple had paid all the outgoings on the property and costs of two major renovations, adding: ‘Mr Ku made little or no contribution.’
Further, he had moved out of the mews property ‘because his auntie and uncle were too strict’, having previously lived with them in Essex after moving to the UK.
‘None of these look like the actions of an owner,’ the judge commented.
‘The true owner was Mrs Huang. The motivation was privacy and a gift was not intended. I make a declaration that the mews house is held in trust by Mr Ku for Mrs Huang.’
The judge ruled that Mr Ku is liable to pay his auntie and uncle’s lawyers bill of around £115,000. He will also have to pay his own legal fees, which were estimated before the trial at £35,000.
Source: Read Full Article
