Left out of a will? Why timing was critical in Made in Chelsea star's inheritance claim

A former Made in Chelsea star’s inheritance claim has highlighted the strict time limits that apply when challenging the financial outcome of an estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This recent High Court decision provides an important reminder that even where someone believes they have a valid claim, delays in seeking advice or issuing proceedings can seriously undermine their chances of success.

Many people assume that a will is always final. However, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, certain family members and dependents can ask the court to alter the financial outcome of an estate if they have not been left reasonable financial provision. This can include not only spouses and children, but also cohabiting partners, people who were financially dependent on the deceased and those who were treated as a child of the family.

Under section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“1975 Act”), an application for reasonable financial provision must ordinarily be issued within six months of the date on which a Grant of Probate or Grant of Letters of Administration is obtained. If a claim is brought outside of that period, this may only proceed with permission from the court.

The purpose of this time limit is to provide certainty for personal representatives and beneficiaries. It allows executors and administrators time to collect estate assets, settle liabilities, and distribute the estate without the indefinite possibility of litigation hanging over the administration process.

The recent decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch) provides a useful reminder of the difficulties faced by applicants seeking permission to bring a 1975 Act claim outside the statutory time limit. In that case, the claimant sought to commence proceedings more than four years after the expiry of the limitation period, arguing that he had been treated as a child of the deceased and was entitled to reasonable financial provision from the estate. The court refused permission and offered valuable guidance on both the exercise of its discretion under section 4 and the merits of claims brought by adult children, or those claiming an equivalent status.

O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026]

The deceased, Hugh Taylor, died leaving an estate valued at around £38.5 million. Under the terms of his will, the vast majority of the estate passed to his widow, with substitutionary gifts to her daughters in the event that she predeceased him. Probate was granted in November 2019, and the estate was subsequently administered and distributed.

The claimant was Lonan O’Herlihy, a former Made in Chelsea star and the son of the deceased’s former partner. The deceased had been in a relationship with the claimant’s mother for approximately nine years between 1995 and 2004, spanning much of the claimant’s childhood and early adulthood.

The claimant argued that throughout that relationship he had been treated as a child of the deceased and had received the kind of emotional, practical, and financial support ordinarily provided by a parent. On that basis, he contended that he was entitled to bring a claim under the 1975 Act.

The defendants disputed his eligibility. Their position was that any parental relationship had ceased many years before the deceased’s death and that, by 2012 at the latest, the deceased was no longer treating the claimant as a child of the family or providing him with financial support. Consequently, they argued that the claimant was not an eligible applicant under the Act.

The claim

The claimant sought substantial provision from the estate, reportedly in the region of £5 million, to include a £3m South Kensington flat, a Patek Philippe watch and £800,000 to purchase investment property.

The principal obstacle facing the claimant was limitation. The six-month period for bringing a claim expired in May 2020. However, proceedings were not commenced until October 2024, more than four years out of time.

In support of his application for permission, the claimant argued that he had been unaware of his ability to bring a claim under the 1975 Act and attributed the delay to inadequate legal advice.

The court’s decision

The court reaffirmed that its discretion to permit claims outside the statutory time limit is a broad one, but emphasised that the discretion must be exercised judicially and with regard to all relevant circumstances.

Among the factors the court will typically consider are:

• the length of the delay;
• the reasons for the delay;
• whether the estate has already been distributed;
• the merits of the proposed claim; and
• the prejudice that may be caused to the parties if permission is granted or refused.

Having considered those factors, the court refused permission for the claim to proceed.

A significant factor was the extraordinary length of the delay. The court found that the claimant’s explanation, namely that he was unaware of the possibility of bringing such a claim, did not adequately justify proceedings being commenced more than four years after the limitation period had expired.

The court also considered the merits of the proposed claim and concluded that it faced considerable difficulties. Although the claimant asserted that he had been treated as a child of the deceased, he was an independent adult at the time of the deceased’s death and was not receiving financial support of a nature or extent likely to justify an award of reasonable financial provision under the Act.

Importantly, the court indicated that even if the underlying claim had been stronger, the substantial delay and the fact that the estate had long since been administered would still have weighed heavily against granting permission.

What can we learn from this decision?

The judgment on the former Made in Chelsea star’s inheritance claim serves as a reminder that, although it is possible to bring a 1975 Act claim outside the six-month limitation period, obtaining permission is far from straightforward.

First, any delay must be supported by a convincing explanation. The longer the delay, the greater the justification that will be required. A claimant who has simply failed to investigate their legal position is unlikely to be received sympathetically, particularly where a significant period of time has elapsed.

Secondly, the administration of the estate remains a critical consideration. Courts are understandably reluctant to reopen estates that have already been distributed, and ask the beneficiaries to pay back sums they have received (and possibly spent). The prejudice caused to beneficiaries and personal representatives will often be a powerful factor against granting an extension of time.

Finally, the merits of the underlying claim are crucial. When considering whether permission should be granted, the court will often undertake a preliminary assessment of the proposed claim’s prospects of success. A weak substantive claim is unlikely to proceed regardless of the reasons advanced for the delay.

In practice, one of the most common mistakes is waiting too long to obtain specialist advice. Whether you are considering a claim against an estate or are an executor facing a potential claim, early advice can help protect your position, preserve evidence and avoid unnecessary costs. If you require advice regarding a potential inheritance claim under the 1975 Act, please contact our team of contentious probate specialists.

Our Legal 500-rated inheritance & trusts disputes team offer friendly but practical advice on this complex area of law.