The High Court’s decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch) provides a modern reminder that in 1975 Act litigation, image and timing can be just as important as substance. The claimant’s public persona, including a carefully curated social media presence, ultimately undermined his credibility, while his delay proved fatal to the claim.
In this article, we summarise the key findings from the case and explain the practical implications for practitioners.
The claimant, a 36 year old personal trainer and former reality TV personality, brought a claim under section 1(1)(d) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, asserting he had been treated as a “child of the family” by the deceased (his mother’s former partner).
He relied on historic financial and emotional support. The defendants, however, pointed to the lack of any meaningful relationship in the years preceding the deceased’s death.
Despite the estate exceeding £38 million, the claimant was excluded from the will and, critically, issued his claim some four and a half years out of time.
Section 4 of the 1975 Act confers a broad discretion on the court to permit claims outside the limitation period. However, O’Herlihy v Taylor demonstrates that, in practice, that discretion is exercised cautiously and in accordance with well-established principles.
The court’s approach reflects the structured evaluation derived from authorities such as Berger v Berger and Cowan v Foreman, including:
the length of, and reasons for, delay;
whether the claimant has acted promptly once aware of the claim;
the merits of the underlying claim; and
the prejudice to the parties.
In this case, each of these factors weighed against the claimant.
The court found that the claimant’s delay was both substantial and inadequately explained. Particularly damaging was the finding that the claimant had failed to act promptly even after:
engaging solicitors; and
issuing proceedings (which were not served for several weeks).
The court rejected the claimant’s assertion that he had not previously been advised of the possibility of a 1975 Act claim.
A key factor in the court’s reasoning was the state of the estate, as by the time the claim was issued:
the estate had been fully administered;
the residue had been distributed; and
the principal beneficiary (the widow) had already expended a substantial portion of her entitlement.
Although the court acknowledged that funds might, in theory, be repaid by the principal beneficiary, it accepted that reopening the estate would give rise to real and tangible prejudice. This reflects a broader trend in 1975 Act case law that the longer an estate has been administered and relied upon, the more reluctant the court will be to unravel it.
Although permission applications are not intended to operate as full merits hearings, the court nonetheless considered whether the claim had a real prospect of success. The judgment confirms the orthodox position that this threshold is relatively low, in that a 1975 Act claim should proceed if it is reasonably arguable.
However, the claimant’s case was undermined by several factors:
a prolonged absence of financial dependence;
his ability, as an adult, to maintain himself independently;
a lack of evidence supporting ongoing quasi-parental treatment; and
the absence of any compelling basis for assessing “reasonable provision” by reference to past affluence.
The court reaffirmed that childhood exposure to wealth does not translate into an entitlement in adulthood.
Claims that the deceased had promised the claimant a future role or assets were treated cautiously. The absence of detrimental reliance proved decisive.
An interesting feature of the case was the court’s consideration of the claimant’s social media presence The claimant’s Instagram profile portrayed a lifestyle of considerable affluence, which he later characterised as aspirational and commercially motivated.
The court did not treat this as determinative of the claim. However, it found that it:
undermined aspects of the claimant’s credibility; and
demonstrated a willingness to present a distorted picture for professional gain.
This illustrates the growing relevance of digital evidence in litigation, while social media may not directly determine financial need, it can materially influence the court’s assessment of credibility and reliability.
Timing is critical - Practitioners should advise potential claimants to consider 1975 Act claims at the earliest stage. Delay is rarely forgiven, and often determinative.
Estate administration strengthens the defence - Where an estate has been fully distributed, defendants are in a significantly stronger position to resist late claims.
Evidence of dependency must be current and compelling - Historic financial support will carry limited weight where independence has been established over time.
Litigation conduct matters - The court will examine not only when a claim is issued, but how it is pursued.
Manage expectations in “child of the family” claims - These claims require careful evidential support and cannot rely on informal or historic family dynamics alone.
Digital footprints are evidentially relevant - Clients should be advised that social media may be scrutinised as part of the factual matrix of any such claim.
O’Herlihy v Taylor stands as a clear reaffirmation of the importance of finality, promptness, and evidential rigour in 1975 Act claims.
Even in the context of a very substantial estate, the court was unwilling to exercise its discretion in favour of a claimant whose delay was unexplained, whose claim was weak, and whose application would disrupt an estate long since administered.
For more information, please contact our disputed wills and trusts team.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
