Key takeaways
- An Inheritance Act claim should usually be issued within six months of the grant of probate or letters of administration.
- A late claim may still be possible, but the court’s permission is needed.
- The longer the delay, the more important it becomes to show a good reason, a strong underlying claim and limited prejudice to the estate or beneficiaries.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “Inheritance Act”) allows certain individuals to seek financial provision from a deceased person’s estate where a will, or the intestacy rules, fail to make reasonable provision for them.
However, there are strict time limits for bringing a claim. In most cases, a claim must be issued within six months of the grant of probate or letters of administration. A grant of probate or letters of administration is the formal authority allowing personal representatives to administer the estate. Missing that deadline does not automatically prevent a claim, but the court’s permission will be required.
A recent High Court decision, O’Herlihy v Taylor & Anor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch), serves as a reminder that delay can significantly undermine a claim, regardless of the size of the estate.
This case concerned an application by a man who claimed to have been treated as a “child of the family” and sought permission to bring a claim against an estate worth approximately £38 million, more than four years after the statutory deadline had expired.
The court refused grant him permission for Mr O’Herlihy to bring this claim out of time. The decision highlights the importance of seeking advice promptly, preserving evidence of financial need and dependency, and understanding that a large estate does not guarantee a successful claim.
If you are considering a claim under the Inheritance Act, or are defending one, contact our Private Wealth Disputes team on 029 2267 5500, or get in touch here: Inheritance Act Claims | Hugh James
What is the Inheritance Act 1975?
The Inheritance Act allows certain categories of people to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from a deceased person’s estate.
You may be able to bring a claim if you are:
- a spouse or civil partner of the deceased
- a former spouse or civil partner (who has not remarried)
- a cohabiting partner who lived with the deceased for at least two years
- a child of the deceased
- someone treated as a child of the family
- a person financially maintained by the deceased immediately before their death
The court has wide powers to make financial awards where it considers that reasonable financial provision has not been made. However, eligibility alone is not enough. The court will also consider factors such as the claimant’s financial needs and resources, the size of the estate, the obligations and responsibilities of the deceased, and the competing claims of beneficiaries.
What is the time limit for bringing an Inheritance Act claim?
A claim under the Inheritance Act must generally be issued within six months of the grant of probate or letters of administration being issued.
The court can allow a claim to proceed after that deadline, but late claims are not granted automatically. The claimant must persuade the court that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion.
When deciding whether to allow a claim to proceed out of time, the court will consider a range of factors, including:
- the length of the delay;
- the reasons for the delay;
- whether the claimant acted promptly once aware of the potential claim;
- the strength of the underlying claim; and
- any prejudice that may be caused to beneficiaries or the administration of the estate.
The decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor demonstrates how these factors are applied in practice.
What is the time limit for bringing an Inheritance Act claim?
A claim under the Inheritance Act must generally be issued within six months of the grant of probate or letters of administration being issued.
The court can allow a claim to proceed after that deadline, but late claims are not granted automatically. The claimant must persuade the court that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion.
When deciding whether to allow a claim to proceed out of time, the court will consider a range of factors, including:
- the length of the delay;
- the reasons for the delay;
- whether the claimant acted promptly once aware of the potential claim;
- the strength of the underlying claim; and
- any prejudice that may be caused to beneficiaries or the administration of the estate.
The decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor demonstrates how these factors are applied in practice.
What happened in O’Herlihy v Taylor?
The claimant, Lonan O’Herlihy, was a 36-year-old personal trainer and former reality television personality.
Although he was not the deceased’s biological child, he claimed that the deceased, Hugh Ian Taylor, had treated him as a child of the family during his relationship with the claimant’s mother, which had lasted from in or around 1995 to in or around 2004. He claimed he relied on historic emotional and financial support provided by the deceased during his childhood and early adult life.
Mr Taylor died in 2019 leaving an estate worth approximately £38 million. The majority of the estate passed to his widow whom he married in 2010. Mr O’Herlihy did not receive any benefit under the deceased’s will and so he argued that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for him.
Crucially, the claimant did not issue proceedings until more than four years after the statutory six-month time limit had expired.
The court was therefore required to decide whether it should exercise its discretion to allow the claim to proceed despite the substantial delay.
Why did the court refuse permission to bring a late Inheritance Act claim?
The court refused permission primarily because Mr O’Herlihy’s underlying claim was not strong enough. Deputy Master Henderson held that the proposed claim had no real prospect of success. He also held that, even if that conclusion was wrong, he would still refuse permission because the discretionary factors weighed against allowing the claim to proceed so far out of time.
The underlying claim was weak
The First Defendant accepted, for the purposes of the preliminary issue only, that Mr O’Herlihy had an arguable case that he had been treated as a “child of the family” between approximately 1996 and 2002. However, that did not mean he had a viable claim for financial provision.
As an adult in this category of claimant, Mr O’Herlihy had to show a claim for maintenance. The court found that he had no real prospect of establishing that the deceased owed him any obligations or responsibilities at the date of death. There had been no contact or financial support between them from around 2012 until the deceased’s death in 2019. By then, Mr O’Herlihy was almost 30, had trained as a personal trainer, and was earning his own living.
The court rejected the argument that Mr O’Herlihy’s financial needs should be assessed by reference to the affluent lifestyle he had previously enjoyed while supported by the deceased. Historic support may help establish that someone was once treated as part of a family, but it does not necessarily create a continuing obligation to provide for them years later.
The delay was substantial
The six-month deadline expired on 1 May 2020. The claim form was not issued until 14 October 2024.
The court accepted that Mr O’Herlihy had not been advised about a possible Inheritance Act claim until summer 2022. However, by then, the deadline had already been missed by around two years. The court considered that prompt action was required from that point.
Further delays followed, including delays in correspondence and in serving the proceedings after issue. The court therefore found that Mr O’Herlihy had not acted promptly.
The estate had already been distributed
By the time the claim was issued, the estate had been fully administered and distributed.
The court accepted that the deceased’s widow could probably meet any likely award if the claim succeeded. However, prejudice was not limited to whether she could repay money. The court also considered the disruption of reopening the estate, the widow’s belief that the claim had been abandoned, and the burden of dealing with litigation more than six years after the deceased’s death.
Social media affected credibility
The court also considered Mr O’Herlihy’s social media and website material, which presented an affluent lifestyle. Mr O’Herlihy said this was marketing for his personal training business rather than a true reflection of his finances.
The court did not treat the material as decisive evidence of Mr O’Herlihy’s financial position. However, it considered that it had some relevance to credibility, noting the use of online “fluff” and “clickbait” and a willingness to tell untruths in a business context.
This is a reminder that public online content may be reviewed in litigation and can affect how the court assesses a party’s evidence.
Practical lessons from O’Herlihy v Taylor
The decision offers practical guidance for both potential claimants and those administering or defending estates.
Seek advice before the deadline expires
A claim under the Inheritance Act should usually be issued within six months of the grant of probate or letters of administration. A late claim may still be possible, but the claimant must persuade the court to exercise its discretion. The longer the delay, the more difficult that becomes.
Act quickly once a possible claim is identified
If the limitation period has already expired, prompt action becomes even more important. Claimants should avoid unnecessary correspondence drift and should take advice on funding, evidence and issuing proceedings without delay.
Evidence of current need matters
Historic family closeness, past gifts or childhood financial support will not usually be enough. The court will focus on the claimant’s present financial position, earning capacity, needs, and whether the deceased had continuing obligations at the date of death.
Keep clear estate administration records
Personal representatives should keep careful records of when assets were distributed, what liabilities were paid, and how beneficiaries have relied on the estate. Those records may become important if a late claim is later threatened.
Review public online content
Parties should assume that public social media, business profiles and lifestyle content may be reviewed during litigation. Even where online content is aspirational or commercial, it may still affect credibility.
Summary
The High Court’s decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor demonstrates that the court’s discretion to allow late claims under the Inheritance Act is not exercised lightly.
Despite the substantial value of the estate, the claimant’s substantial delay (which the court considered was not sufficiently justified), the weakness of the underlying claim, and the prejudice that would result from reopening a fully administered estate led the court to refuse permission.
The key lesson is clear: anyone considering an Inheritance Act claim should seek advice promptly. Delay can be decisive, even where the estate is large and the claimant believes they have a genuine connection to the deceased.
If you are considering a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975, or need advice regarding a disputed estate, our Private Wealth Disputes team can help. Please get in touch for tailored advice.
