A recent High Court decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor has attracted media attention due to the involvement of Lonan O’Herlihy, who appears on Made in Chelsea.
Beyond the headlines, the case offers a useful reminder of the strict requirements for bringing claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”), particularly where an adult claimant seeks to bring a claim long after death.
Our Contentious Probate Lawyers explore the judgment, which highlights the significant hurdles faced by adult claimants and reinforces the importance of complying with the statutory six-month time limit when pursuing claims for reasonable financial provision.
The Background
The claim arose following the death of property investor Hugh Taylor in 2019.
His estate, reportedly worth around £38 million, comprised a range of high‑value assets, including classic cars and even a WWII‑era Hawker Hurricane fighter plane.
Under the terms of his final Will, the estate passed almost entirely to his widow, Jennifer Taylor.
The claimant, Lonan O’Herlihy, was not Mr Taylor’s biological child. However, between 1995 and 2003, Mr Taylor was in a relationship with Mr O’Herlihy’s mother.
During this period, the claimant, his mother, his brother and Mr Taylor lived together as a “family unit”.
Mr Taylor provided financial support to the claimant at that time, including paying for private schooling and university fees.
Following the end of the relationship between Mr Taylor and the claimant’s mother, and Mr Taylor’s subsequent marriage to Jennifer Taylor, their connection diminished.
By around 2012, Mr Taylor had indicated that he no longer considered himself financially responsible for the claimant, and there was limited involvement between them in the years that followed.
The Proposed Claim
The 1975 Act permits certain categories of individuals - including spouses, children, other dependants and those treated as a “child of the family” - to apply to the court where a Will (or intestacy) does not make reasonable financial provision for them.
Mr O’Herlihy asked the court for permission to bring a claim as a person treated as a “child of the family”. He sought provision totalling around £5 million, including:
- a £3 million South Kensington flat;
- a Mercedes 280SL Pagoda;
- a Patek Philippe watch;
- a valuable painting; and
- £800,000 to purchase an investment property.
However, claims under the 1975 Act must be issued within six months of the grant of representation. In this case, the application was made more than four years after Mr Taylor’s death.
As a result, the claimant first required the court’s permission to bring the claim out of time.
The Court’s Decision
The High Court refused permission for the late claim.
Importantly, the judge concluded that the proposed claim had no real prospect of success, even if it had been issued within the statutory time limit. Key findings included:
- While the claimant may have been treated as a “child of the family” during part of his childhood, that arrangement had ended many years before the deceased’s death.
- By the time of Mr Taylor’s death, the claimant was an independent adult capable of supporting himself.
- There was no evidence of ongoing financial dependency that could justify an award for maintenance.
The court also emphasised that the concept of “maintenance” under the 1975 Act does not mean maintaining the same luxury lifestyle that a claimant may have enjoyed during childhood.
Given the significant delay of over 4 years, the limited merits of the claim, and the fact that the estate had already been distributed, the court refused permission to bring the claim out of time.
Key Takeaways
Although widely reported due to the claimant’s public profile, the case reinforces several important principles in probate litigation.
Time limits
Claims under the 1975 Act must be brought within six months of the grant of representation. While the court has discretion to allow late claims, it exercises that discretion cautiously.
Adult claimants
Claims brought by adult children - or individuals treated as a child of the family - are often more difficult to establish unless there is a clear financial dependency or a genuine maintenance need.
Maintenance
The purpose of the 1975 Act is to ensure reasonable financial provision for maintenance, not to replicate a particular lifestyle or to provide a windfall for the claimant. The court will focus on whether the claimant has a genuine financial need rather than whether they previously enjoyed a particular standard of living.
Relationship with the deceased
In “child of the family” claims, the court will closely examine the nature and duration of the relationship between the claimant and the deceased.
How Our Contentious Probate Team Can Help
At Myerson, our Contentious Probate specialists advise both claimants and defendants on all aspects of 1975 Act claims - including eligibility, limitation issues, dependency arguments and defending claims against estates.
If you require advice on bringing or defending an inheritance claim, please contact our Contentious Probate Team.
0161 941 4000
Latest Myerson Contentious Probate News
Myerson Magazine Autumn 2026 Issue
Welcome to the latest edition of Myerson Magazine, where we share practical legal advice, expert insights and news from across Myerson Solicitors. In this issue, we cover some of the important legal considerations that arise at different stages of life, from protecting family wealth and planning for the next generation to understanding your...
Read Newsletter
McDaniel v Talbot: Can an Estranged Child Contest a Parent’s Will?
Being left out of a parent’s Will can be particularly difficult where a once-distant relationship has been rebuilt, but the Will still reflects an earlier period of estrangement. For an adult child in this position, the question is not simply whether their exclusion feels unfair, but whether the Will makes reasonable financial provision for their...
Read Blog
Can I Challenge a Will if My Relative Had Dementia?
Discovering that a loved one changed their Will shortly before they died can be upsetting and distressing, particularly where the changes have an adverse effect on those closest. That is particularly true if they had been diagnosed with dementia and the contents of the Will come as a complete surprise. A question we are frequently asked is: "Can...
Read Blog
Myerson Magazine Summer 2026 Issue
We're pleased to share the latest issue of Myerson Magazine, bringing together practical legal insights, updates on significant legislative changes and stories from across the firm. In this Summer edition, our experts explore the legal issues affecting individuals, families, business owners and property investors, from the Renters' Rights Act and...
Read Newsletter
Inheritance Rights for Unmarried Couples: What Happens If Your Partner Dies?
Many couples live together for years, sharing a home, finances, and children, believing that time alone provides the same protection as marriage. It doesn’t. In England and Wales, an unmarried partner has no automatic right to inherit, regardless of how long the relationship lasted. To understand your rights and risks, this guide from our...
Read Blog
Netflix's The Four Seasons: Who Inherits If a Divorce Isn't Finalised?
Viewers of Netflix’s The Four Seasons will have followed the emotional fallout of Nick’s sudden death and the complicated situation he leaves behind. The second season of the hit comedy-drama has been praised for its sharp, often poignant exploration of midlife relationships, where love, loss, and life changes collide in ways that are both funny...
Read Blog
Rebekah Jackson
Trainee Solicitor
Rebekah joined Myerson in September 2025 as a Trainee Solicitor. She studied Law at the University of Lancaster, graduating in 2022 with a First Class Honours LLB.
About Rebekah Jackson