Thai mum wins court fight over London restaurant

Judge rejects brother’s claim to be the owner of a well-known Thai restaurant.

A family lost a legal case against her brother in London over who is the owner of a Thai lesson restaurant that was once hailed as Britain’s most adored.

Ekkachai Somboonsam, a 51- year- ancient restaurant, claimed to be the proprietor of Thai Metro, located in Fitzrovia near the British Museum in London. A jury has ruled, nevertheless, that instead he was a simple individual and that his mom, Vanida Walker, was the lawful owner, The Times reported.

At time 5, Mr. Ekkachai moved to the UK and worked as a baker and house porter. In 2000, he told the judge, he founded the lesson restaurant in Fitzrovia in 2000 using an estate from his parents. The family’s achievement led to the establishment of a subsequent restaurant and the building of a multimillion-pound property investment.

Ms Vanida, 77, began a legal action against her boy last year, claiming that she owned the cafe and that, rather than being the boss, her brother worked for her.

This year, a High Court judge ruled that the family, who likewise owns the Charlotte Street house where Thai Metro is based, was advantageously owning the home businesses Thai Metro, Anglo Thai, and Finfish Catering.

Judge Malcolm Davis-White refuted Mr. Ekkachai’s say that the money he had inherited in Thailand was used as the business’s plant income. Nevertheless, he ruled that Mr Ekkachai owned two different qualities from the family collection, which his mother had likewise claimed.

Mr Vanida moved to London from Thailand in 1973, working as a cleaner before moving into food, providing Thai meal at backyard audio events, including Glastonbury, and running a restaurant in east London.

Thai Metro was opened 23 years ago. It was named by the Hungryhouse delivery site as” Britain’s most- loved take­away” as a result of its five- sun ratings and “unprecedented gain rate”, beating 12, 000 various businesses.

But, the mother and son developed “diametrically opposed” views over the possession of the companies, the judge was told.

Although Ms. Vanida’s shares in the company were in Mr. Ekkachai’s name, Robert Strang, a representative of Mr. Ekkachai, claimed that her son’s separation from his first wife was in her rights to stop her from claiming.

Timothy Cowen, the counsel for Ms Vanida, said, however, that she had invested the money and taken the rent in her own title “because this was her business”.

The judge noted that the mother, who had claimed that her son’s father “was comparably poor,” had told the court that there had been” no substantial inheritance.” He added that the father’s version of events regarding his estate” completely broke down” in traverse- investigation.