A ‘parasite’ son who spun a web of ‘disgraceful’ lies in a bid to claim his siblings’ inheritance for himself has been ordered out of the family home and handed a £265,000 bill.

Robert Chung, 62, claimed he was promised that he alone would inherit his parents’ three-bedroom house because he moved back in while he was in his 30s to care for them in their old age.

His father Victor died in 1998 and his mother Irene in 2016, but because she had no will her £600,000 estate was to be split equally between Robert and his high-flying siblings, accountant Marina Bennett and IT boss Richard Chung.

Robert sued in a bid to get the entire house, claiming he left a job in the ‘film industry’ to his detriment.

His siblings fought back, calling him a ‘parasite’ and ‘financial drain’ on their parents, claiming he lounged around ‘watching movies non-stop’ while his mother cooked and cleaned.

They insisted he is a ‘pathological liar’ with a ‘grandiose view’ of himself, and that the extent of his involvement in the ‘film industry’ was actually just a job in a Blockbuster video shop. 

He has now been left facing £265,000 in court bills after a judge threw out his case and ordered him to get out of the family home.

Recorder Lawrence McDonald branded him a liar and his case a ‘disgraceful insult on the memory’ of his father.

Robert Chung, 62, claimed the family home was promised solely to him after he moved back in to look after his parents

Marina Bennett, Robert’s younger sister, said that her brother would just lounge around the living room all day watching films

Neither parent had made any such promise about his inheritance, said the judge, while Robert had not cared for or looked after either of them, with his elderly mother doing almost everything around the house while he failed to ‘pull his weight in any way.’

Just because he might have given his mother £50 a week towards bills and ‘prepared the mashed potato’ for dinner did not mean he ‘looked after’ her, said the judge, slamming Robert for ‘making things up’ in court to boost his case.

Dismissing his claim, he said the ‘tragedy’ was that Robert had probably now squandered his entire inheritance in his court bid to take the house for himself.

Central London County Court heard that Victor and Irene Chung brought up their three children in a three-bed detached home, in Mulberry Way, South Woodford – which ended up their ‘most significant asset.’

Barrister, Faisel Sadiq, representing Robert’s siblings, told Recorder McDonald that they had always instilled a sense of ‘self-reliance’ in their children.

But while Marina, 60, and Richard, 58, had gone off to forge successful careers – Marina as a senior accountant in the US and Canada, and Richard as an IT manager in London – Robert had been a ‘disappointment.’

Although he moved out of the family home to Berkshire, he moved back in 1990, taking employment in a Job Centre and never again leaving his parents’ home.

Giving evidence, Robert told the judge that he had only moved back home because he had been asked to do so to provide care for his father, who he said was ill.

He claimed that his father told him he would get everything when he died and that Irene could go back to her native Finland because she ‘came with nothing and could go back with nothing.’

His mother had made similar promises after his father died, he claimed, as he stayed with her at his childhood home, looking after her in her old age.

However, his father’s final will left everything to his mother, who then died intestate, with her estate to be split between the three children equally.

For the siblings, Mr Sadiq suggested that Robert had not really looked after his parents, since neither parent needed extensive care, with the evidence suggesting it was his mum who looked after him.

Richard Chung, 58, agreed with their sister that the house and estate should be split three ways

He put it to him that he was ‘the son that was a bit of a disappointment,’ not properly flying the nest and in fact ‘a financial drain’ on his parents.

In her evidence, Marina said she had been ‘horrified’ at the state of her mother and the house when she visited in 2016, telling the judge: ‘For someone supposedly looking after mum, Robert Chung had failed.’

Prior to that, she had not seen her brother caring for their mother, she continued, accusing him of ‘just lounging in the living room watching movies non-stop, with mum doing everything around you.’

Giving judgment, Recorder McDonald said that, if Robert’s claim to the whole house was successful, it would mean there were ‘no significant assets’ in the estate to split with his siblings.

However, he found that Robert was prone to ‘making things up,’ adding: ‘I found that Robert was difficult and evasive in his evidence.

‘There were lots of things he said in cross-examination that were simply not mentioned in his evidence, that weren’t supported by any objective evidence, and in fact in many cases were contradicted.

‘I was struck by the inherent implausibility of many of the things he said.’

Finding that neither of his parents made any promises about him inheriting the whole house, he particularly slammed Robert for his claims about his father threatening to leave his mother with nothing.

‘I reject it as a despicable insult on the memory of his father to say that he would suggest that his wife of 50 years should be sent back to a country in which she had not lived for half a century on the basis that she came here with nothing and could go back with the same,’ he said.

‘It is inherently implausible that he would leave Irene bereft so that she had to return to Finland with nothing.

‘There is no support in the documentary evidence for the allegation that this assurance was made.

‘Victor’s will was made just prior to his death. There is no mention of it.

‘I am driven to the conclusion that Robert was lying when he said to this court that Victor made that promise to him.

‘And I am driven to the conclusion that Robert was lying when he referred also to the representations he alleges were made by Irene.

‘It’s not just a lie. I find it hard to understand the process by which a person can say of their father that the father would say such a heartless and despicable thing.

‘I consider it an utterly disgraceful suggestion to have made.’

On Robert’s claims to have cared for his parents, he said the evidence painted a picture of a son ‘not pulling his weight,’ with Marina’s husband Stephen Bennett telling of his shock when he found himself as a visitor from Canada helping her with DIY while Robert, who lived in the house, ‘was simply not helping.’

‘It was put to Robert that she had done all the washing, cooking and cleaning – and I was rather struck by his response that he had prepared the mashed potato,’ said the judge.

‘Even if that’s right, it cannot amount to looking after Irene, set against the work she did.

‘I don’t accept he was providing the care he said he was providing to his mother.

‘Paying £50 a week when an elderly mother is paying all the household expenses and bills hardly constitutes taking care of her.

‘I find he didn’t provide care for Victor, and not for Irene either. Rather, it was Irene who was doing all the cooking, cleaning and washing.

‘She was looking after the grandchildren. She was asking for help from Marina and Stephen because Robert was frankly not pulling his weight in any way.’

Rejecting his claim to the house, the judge ordered Robert to leave within 28 days, taking all of his things with him, while also handing him £265,000 in bills for the case.

The sum comprises £90,000 towards the lawyers’ bills of his siblings and the estate administrator, and another £175,000 in so-called ‘mesne profits’ to mark his occupation of the house in the years since he was first asked to leave after his mum died.

‘This matter has been going on for longer than eight years now, but this matter needs to be brought to a close,’ he said.

‘It’s in nobody’s interests for the estate of a lady who died getting on for 10 years ago to still be dragging on.

‘The real shame and tragedy of a case like this is that Victor and Irene created a life that included buying a house which has turned out to be a valuable asset that could have been passed on to their children.

‘Each of the children would have been entitled, and still is, to one third of the estate. Robert, through trying to take the whole of the property for himself, has probably wasted his share in the costs of this case and the mesne profits.

‘But that is a tragedy I am satisfied is of Robert’s making and is not a reason that should deter me from making what I consider to be the appropriate order.’

The court heard Robert could have walked away with 62.5 percent of the value of the house after being offered a deal to settle the case prior to trial by his siblings.