A bitter battle between the two sons of a restaurateur who left a multi-million dollar empire after dying of brain cancer has been decided in favour of the son.
Amy Chant built the Chat Thai restaurant chain from one location in Darlinghurst, in Sydney’s CBD, 35 years ago, to eight across the city by the time of her death in 2021.
Ms Chant, who was known as the “Queen of Thailand”, left two wills, one written in New South Wales and the other in Thailand, dividing her empire between her children Palisa Anderson and Pat Laoyont.
However, the two brothers have been engaged in a bitter court battle for the past two years over their mother’s ability to execute the Thai will due to her illness.
Under both wills, Palisa received part ownership of a farm near Byron Bay and a property in Mosman, in Sydney’s north, while Pat received real estate in Thailand.
NSW split the shares in the restaurant chain’s parent company, CT Group, equally between the two brothers, with Pat receiving the Chat Thai CBD restaurant.
However, the Thai will gave Pat all the shares in the restaurant chain’s parent company, plus the rest of the estate.
The dispute ended up in the Supreme Court, and Palisa appealed a ruling that found in favor of her brother.
Amy Chant (pictured) built the Chat Thai restaurant chain from one location in Darlinghurst in Sydney’s CBD 35 years ago to eight across the city by the time of her death in 2021.
Ms Chant, who was hailed as the “Queen of Thailand”, left two wills, one written in New South Wales and the other in Thailand, which divided her empire between her children Palisa Anderson (pictured) and Pat Laoyont.
The court heard the two brothers disagreed over the running of the Chat Thai business, a fact that worried their mother.
However, Amy’s brother Bob told the court that the creation of the Thai will was partly a response to a lack of “trust” towards his daughter’s son-in-law, Matthew Anderson.
“I trusted Pat,” Bob reported Amy as saying, according to the ruling.
‘He will run this business the same way I want. I also wanted him to take care of my estate, which I intended to leave to my grandchildren (referring to Palisa’s children) when they grew up and became adults. I don’t trust Matt.’
The court heard that this sentiment was shared by a Thai lawyer, responsible for drafting the new will, who also gave evidence at the hearing.
The lawyer told the court he had asked Amy why she wanted to change her will and she replied: “I think he (referring to her daughter’s husband) wants to take over all my businesses.”
Palisa had argued that her mother was exhibiting “distracted behavior” at the time she changed the will.
Palisa had argued that her mother exhibited “uncontrolled behavior” at the time she changed the will (pictured: mother and daughter together)
However, the appeal court upheld the original sentence, finding that Ms Chant had a “clear understanding” of what she was doing.
“Amy had been a successful businesswoman,” the ruling said.
‘She considered that her daughter had become successful on her own and, based on evidence accepted by the trial judge, she did not want her son-in-law to continue to have a role in the business.
‘That was his prerogative, but it was more than a matter of taste or even cultural or personal bias: the head judge referred to Matt’s candid agreement that, “by late 2019, he had formed the view that Chat Thai’s business model was outdated, ineffective and unproductive and that he raised those kinds of issues with Amy.” Amy disagreed.
The appeal was dismissed, meaning Pat will inherit the majority of the estate.
