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
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
Surrogacy and Succession: What the Longleat Trust Case Means for Modern Inheritance Disputes
A recent High Court decision involving the Longleat estate highlights an emerging challenge in trust and probate law: applying historic trust instruments to modern family structures, particularly those created through assisted reproduction and surrogacy. Although the case is rooted in aristocratic wealth, the legal principles are widely relevant...
Read Blog
When Silence Leads to Conflict: The Most Common Disputes We See After Someone Dies
The death of a loved one should mark a period of reflection and closure. However, for many families, a lack of clarity or communication may result in legal disputes after death. In this blog, our Probate Dispute Lawyers outline the most common contentious probate disputes we encounter and why they arise.
Read Blog
15
Partnership and Company Disputes in Probate: Risks and Resolution
A practical session on partnership and company disputes in probate, covering key risks, impacts on estates and approaches to resolution. Partnership and company disputes can add significant complexity to probate matters, particularly where business interests form part of an estate. This session provides a practical overview of the issues that can...
View Event
Informal Agreements and Probate Disputes: The Risk of Handshake Deals
Informal family arrangements and verbal promises are a common cause of probate disputes, particularly in farming families and family‑run businesses. While these “handshake deals” may feel fair and binding at the time they are made, they can lead to costly and emotionally charged inheritance disputes after death. Our Contentious Probate lawyers...
Read Blog
Caveats, Warnings and Removal: A Practical Guide for Probate Practitioners
In this practical post-event webinar, Myerson Solicitors explored the legal and procedural complexities surrounding caveats , warnings and their removal in probate disputes , offering practitioners clear guidance on navigating one of the most misunderstood areas of contentious probate practice. The session provided a practical examination of the...
Watch Webinar
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