O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch)

This blog is co-authored by Claire Brierley and Annabel Lake.

The recent case of O’Herlihy v Taylor highlights the key hurdles for those thinking of bringing a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 (“the Act”) as a person once treated as a ‘child of the family’ – a term that is not straightforward and particularly fact-specific.

Case facts

Hugh Ian Taylor (the “Deceased”) died in June 2019, leaving behind a £38.5 million fortune. His estate has since become the centre of a high-profile inheritance dispute. The Deceased’s 2015 Will appointed his widow (the “First Defendant”) and long-standing accountant (the “Second Defendant”) as executors, gifting substantial legacies to two former employees and leaving the remainder of his estate to his widow. The Grant of Probate was issued in November 2019, and the estate was distributed in full.

The Claimant, Lonan Daniel O’Herlihy (the “Claimant”), was born in 1989. The Claimant’s mother and the Deceased were in a relationship between 1995 and 2004, and during this time, he claimed he received emotional, educational, and financial support from the Deceased. The Claimant asserted that he was treated as a child of the family and that this continued up until 2012, even following the breakdown in the relationship between the Deceased and the Claimant’s mother. On that basis, he sought provision of around £5 million from the estate, 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.

The Claim

The Claimant sought an order that provision be made for him out of the estate by virtue of Section.1(1)(d) of the Act as a person (not being a child of the Deceased) who was treated by the Deceased as a child of the family.

The limitation period for bringing such a claim expired on 1 May 2020, but the Claimants' claim wasn’t issued until 14 October 2024, over 4 years later. Accordingly, the Claimant also sought the court’s permission to bring a claim out of time.

The Claimant’s Position

Put plainly, the Claimant’s position was that he was treated as a child of the Deceased’s family, he had not been adequately provided for under the Deceased’s will, and he had a maintenance need to be met.

In relation to his claim being out of time, the Claimant argued that he was unaware of his right to bring a claim under this Act and attributed his delay to this, along with poor legal advice.

The Defendant’s Position

The First Defendant denied the characterisation put forward by the Claimant, emphasising that the Deceased had not had contact with the Claimant for the last seven years of his life.

The Second Defendant took a neutral stance.

Discussion

In considering the merits of the Claimant’s claim, a key factor when considering an application for a claim to be brought out of time, Deputy Master Henderson concluded that the Claimant, being an adult and demonstrably capable of earning an income, was able to maintain himself at the standard of living he had established through his work as a self‑employed personal trainer. The Deputy Master rejected the submission that the Claimant’s standard of living should be measured against the one which he enjoyed whilst growing up by reason of the Deceased - it was asserted that the standard should be the one he enjoyed as a result of his own resources. Accordingly, the fact that he had not been financially dependent on the Deceased for several years was significant.

Emphasis was also placed on the immense prejudice and unfairness to those who had already inherited from the estate after so many years of the estate being settled. It was considered that disrupting the distribution after so many years wasn’t proportionate.

The Deputy Master rejected the Claimant's explanation for the delay, reinforcing that Claimants are expected to take proactive steps to ascertain their rights concerning bringing a claim under the Act.

The court ultimately rejected the Claimant’s application for permission to bring a claim out of time.

Final Comments

The case serves as a timely reminder of the importance of acting promptly when pursuing claims under the Act – irrespective of which limb a claim is to be brought under. Although the court retains discretion to permit an application out of time, that discretion is exercised cautiously and only in limited circumstances with due consideration of the merits of the substantive claim being advanced.

The case also highlights the difficulty in advancing a claim ‘as a child of the family’ when there has been an apparent estrangement or at least limited contact with the Deceased, despite in practice, estrangement being common in many families and parent and child relationships.