A RADIO star has been branded a “monster” by his Girls Aloud director sister amid a bitter £1.2 million inheritance row.
The Smooth Radio DJ has got himself into a “tragic war of inheritance” with his sister following the death of their mother in 2020.
Philip Chryssikos, 52, is a voiceover artist and radio presenter who won awards with his own music show on Smooth RadioCredit: Champion News
He is in the battle with his Girls Aloud art director sister Maria, 56, who has always lived at their childhood homeCredit: Champion News
Philip sued his sister in a bid to get her out of their mother’s £1.2 million home in west LondonCredit: Champion News Service
The two own the house together under their mother’s will, but the wants to sell it to get his
Philip has called his sister “lazy”, as she has gotten the same chances in life as him and made her own success financially.
He insists the property should now be sold so they can split the money.
However, a judge refused Philip’s bid to evict his sister, citing the many years she devoted to being their elderly mother’s “primary carer”.
Judge Luke Ashby recognised it to be a “hard job”, as Maria was also an art and production director who has worked on ads for well-known brand and videos.
Their mother additionally stated that whilst she wanted the house to be inherited equally, she also wanted Maria to remain in the home without the threat of eviction after she died.
Judge Ashby subsequently ruled the house can be sold, but only once 56-year-old Maria reaches the age of 70.
He however refused her bid for life interest in the house, and her application claim for increased provision from the will.
The siblings were said to have grown up in “poverty”, the court heard.
They lost their father at an early age, but were both able to forge successful careers in the .
Philip has worked as a voiceover artist on radio channels like , Gold Radio, Heart, , and , notably being an award-winning presenter with his own show on .
He told the court he frequently got into “whirlwind arguments” with his sister, and they had a poor relationship.
Maria has fought back on Philip’s attempts to kick her out of their childhood home, claiming there had always been an agreement the house would be there for either of them to live in for the rest of their lives.
She claimed a life interest in the property, highlighting how she was the one who cared for their mum when she was poorly, whilst sacrificing her own career.
Philip’s “warm and trusted voice” has been used for “top brands like Virgin Atlantic, Harley-Davidson, Audi, BMW, Ford and Tesla”, according to his website.Credit: Champion News
Maria has worked on adverts for well-known brands, videos for Girls Aloud, TV shows and moviesCredit: Champion News
However, when Maria’s lawyer put forward in court that she has been left worse off than her brother, Philip suggested it was her fault for being “lazy”.
“She is just as renowned and well-known in her industry as I perhaps am in mine,” he said during a three-day trial last week.
“She spent her money frivolously. She answered to nobody. She struggled to hold down work because she was lazy and couldn’t be bothered to undertake projects.”
“The money she had was frivolously spent. She decided when she worked, when she didn’t work. That was based solely on her being lazy and feeling the world owed her something.”
“My sister had the same opportunities as I had – she has chosen to carve her own path in life,” Philip said.
Representatives for Maria outlined that Philip had instead spent significant periods away from the house living with girlfriends, while his sister remained in the house her whole life.
“The deceased led Maria to believe that the property was to be Maria’s home for the rest of her life and that Maria – and Philip if he so wished – would always be able to live at the property,” barrister Richard Buston said.
“She regularly made clear from when Maria and Philip were in their early twenties that the property should remain in both Philip’s and Maria’s names as to 100% each, and if one of them died, it would go to the other.
“The deceased was concerned to ensure that, if anything ever went wrong in any relationships that Maria and Philip had, their ability to enjoy the property would be unaffected.”
As a result of these promises, it was added that Maria had spent a significant amount of money to maintain the house which also contributed to losses in fortune.
“Maria is self-employed and the single shareholder of a limited company and thus would not receive a private pension,” the barrister continued.
“However, the deceased would tell Maria that she didn’t need to buy any property as an investment for her future but to invest her money in the property instead.
“Maria was able to provide the deceased with constant care, to the detriment of her career, personal life and social life, in reliance on the deceased’s assurance that the property would always provide Maria with a home and an investment for her future.”
Philip claimed that they had been “both joint carers”, and also spent his own money on the house.
When asked if their mother intended the house to always be there for her children to live in, he responded: “To reside at, yes. But for life, no.”
“It was a roof over our heads. My mother never spoke of joint tenancies, she simply always referred to her will, which was 50-50.
“During her lifetime, the house was there, beyond her lifetime it reverts to the will.
“It was always strictly to the will. We both were aware of the will. That was fair. You can’t get fairer than 50-50 in a will from a parent.”
During Maria’s time to give evidence, she recalled a time her brother was a “monster” when he returned to live in the house after a relationship breakdown in 2016.
She said he “completely ripped the house apart” because he wanted to build a studio in her office.
“He wrecked my studio, my bedroom, my office. He absolutely hated me and for what reason I do not know.”
“He was a person I had never seen before. He was a monster.
“I was never not working, I just took tiny jobs. All the money I had was put into the house, I never had any social life.”
Giving judgement, Judge Ashby labelled the situation a “complete tragedy”, and the relationship between the two siblings “volatile” and “fraught with aggression”.
“It is siblings pitting against each other in a war of inheritance. Their mother would not have wanted to see them here,” he added.
He concluded both had helped financially, with Maria spending more particularly as their mother’s needs increased in 2007 when Philip was in a serious relationship and was spending less time at the house.
Maria did the “lion’s share of care,” the judge stated, although Philip did more when he moved back in 2016.
“The claimant thinks Maria is simply lazy in respect of her working position and financial responsibility,” he said.
“She may not be as good with her money as he is or motivated in the same way he is.
“The reality is she carried out a significant amount of care for her mother, the lion’s share of it at least over a 10-year period.
“That’s a hard job. These weren’t insignificant needs. This isn’t popping in once a day. These are ongoing serious physical needs which increased over time.
“It doesn’t surprise me at all that that would mean Maria would be more limited in terms of what work she can do.
“I think the care in particular is an important factor.
“When you put that together with this letter, on the balance of probabilities it paints a picture of for many years Maria being the primary carer, making sacrifices in relation to her work and career and social life, and acting to her detriment on the promise that mum wanted the property to remain her residence if she paid for it.
“The inclusion of the line ‘and not to be evicted’ is telling. She wanted her to be able to stay.
“But it doesn’t say for how long. It doesn’t say ‘forever.’
“It didn’t seem to me that she would want Philip to be kept out of all of his interest forever, which is effectively what would happen if there was a life interest.
“It seems to me therefore that the intention was that it could remain as her residence for a period of time.
“Where we get to is a licence to occupy until the earliest of when she doesn’t require the home as her residence or the age of 70.”
Philip’s request for an order for sale with vacant possession was rejected, whilst a claim for rent from his sister was dropped during the trial.
Maria’s increased provision claim was considered “completely hopeless”, and because neither party got all they wanted, the judge ordered they would have to pay their own lawyers’ bill for the dispute.
