A mother has defeated her son in a legal battle in London over who owns a Thai takeaway restaurant that was once named Britain’s most-loved.
Ekkachai Somboonsam, a 51-year-old chef, claimed to be the owner of Thai Metro, located in Fitzrovia near the British Museum in London. A court has ruled, however, that instead he was a mere employee and that his mother, Vanida Walker, was the legal owner, The Times reported.
Mr Ekkachai came to the UK at age 5 and worked as a kitchen porter and cook. In 2000, he told the court, he founded the takeaway restaurant in Fitzrovia using an inheritance from his father. Its success allowed the family to open a second restaurant and then go on to amass a multimillion-pound property portfolio.
Ms Vanida, 77, began a legal action against her son last year, claiming that she owned the restaurant and that, rather than being the boss, her son worked for her.
A High Court judge ruled this week that the family companies Thai Metro, Anglo Thai and Finfish Catering were beneficially owned by the mother, who also owns the Charlotte Street property where Thai Metro operates.
According to The Times, Judge Malcolm Davis-White rejected Mr Ekkachai’s claim that money he had inherited in Thailand was used as the seed capital for the business. However, he ruled that Mr Ekkachai owned two other properties from the family portfolio, which his mother had also claimed.
Ms Vanida moved to London from Thailand in 1973, working as a cleaner before moving into catering, providing Thai food at outdoor music festivals, including Glastonbury, and running a restaurant in southeast London.
Thai Metro was opened 23 years ago. It was named by the Hungryhouse delivery website as “Britain’s most-loved takeaway” as a result of its five-star ratings and “unprecedented return rate”, beating 12,000 other businesses.
However, the mother and son developed “diametrically opposed” views over the ownership of the businesses, the court was told.
Robert Strang, representing Mr Ekkachai, said that although shares in the business were in Ms Vanida’s name, the reason was that her son was separated from his first wife and wanted to prevent her making a claim.
Timothy Cowen, the counsel for Ms Vanida, said, however, that she had invested the money and taken the lease in her own name “because this was her business”.
The judge noted that the mother had told the court that there had been “no substantial inheritance” as her son had claimed that his father “was comparatively poor”. He added that the son’s version of events regarding his inheritance “completely broke down” in cross-examination.