Lohan O’Herlihy v Hugh Taylor: a cautionary tale

Lohan O’Herlihy, the Made in Chelsea star and personal trainer known as the ‘Posh PT’ is reportedly facing a £2m adverse costs award after losing an inheritance battle over his mother’s ex-partner’s £38m estate. O’Herlihy, had sought £5m from the estate of Hugh Taylor, whom he said he regarded as his ‘dad’. The Court did not agree and rejected his claim.

The case serves as a cautionary tale to those considering bringing a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. It highlights the perils faced by adult children—specifically those not biologically related to the deceased—when seeking ‘reasonable financial provision’ from an estate.

Considering a similar claim? Here are the key factors that determine your chances of success, and the red flags that indicate when a claim has become too risky.

1) Key Factors for Bringing a Claim

To succeed in a claim under the 1975 Act, particularly when the claimant is not a biological child, the court looks at a specific set of criteria:

The ‘Child of the Family’ Requirement

Under the 1975 Act, a person can claim if they were treated by the deceased as a “child of the family” in relation to a marriage or civil partnership, or if they were “maintained” by the deceased.

A key concept here is ‘The Family Unit’.  In essence, a claimant must prove that a parent-child dynamic existed. In this case O’Herlihy argued that despite the lack of a biological link, the deceased (Hugh Taylor) had assumed parental responsibility and treated him as a son during Mr Taylor’s long-term relationship with O’Herlihy’s mother.

Financial Need vs. ‘Moral’ Entitlement

The court does not grant awards based on what is ‘fair’ or a ‘share’ of the wealth. It grants awards based on the claimant’s need for ‘maintenance’. O’Herlihy’s claim included requests for a house, a classic car and a luxury watch. The Court rejected those requests on the basis that the 1975 Act is designed to provide “maintenance,” not a “windfall.”  Therefore if your claim seeks luxury items or capital assets that go beyond your reasonable daily living needs, the court may well reject your claim as being unreasonable. There is no obligation for the court to make an award that would maintain an ‘opulent’ lifestyle particularly where (as here) the court felt that O’Herlihy was capable of working for some years.

The Conduct of the Deceased

The court will also take into account any obligations or responsibilities the deceased had toward the claimant. It will look at whether there were verbal or written promises of an inheritance. Conversely, if the deceased explicitly stated in their later years (or in their Will) that they did not feel a responsibility to provide for the claimant, this carries significant weight.

2) When the Claim Becomes Too Risky

This case reached the headlines because of the celebrity claimant and the figures involved. There were a number of factors why the claim was rejected including the fact that there had been a very significant passage of time between the ending of his mother’s relationship with Mr Taylor.  In this case, the relationship between the claimant’s mother and the deceased ended in 2002—17 years before the death of Mr Taylor. Although the two remained in contact, Mr Taylor remarried in 2010 and from that point contact with O’Herlihy dwindled. There had therefore been a long period of ‘estrangement’ and a cessation of financial support before the death in which circumstances the court is unlikely to find a continuing “maintenance” obligation.

Another factor that the court has to take into account is the needs of any Competing Beneficiaries. In short, the court must balance a claimant’s needs against the needs of the actual beneficiaries named in the Will. In this case, almost all of Mr Taylor’s estate (which included classic cars, high-value properties, and a Second World War Hurricane aircraft) was bequeathed to his widow, Jennifer Taylor, under a 2015 Will. The court will be particularly hesitant to take money away from a widow/widower to give it to an adult child who is capable of working. It will not use the 1975 Act to redistribute wealth simply because an estate is large; the claimant must show a genuine financial need for maintenance.

3) The risk of losing: legal costs

The biggest risk in these cases is perhaps not just losing, it is the legal costs. That is because the general position on costs is that a court will order that the losing side pays not only their own legal costs but also the legal costs of the winning party. In this case the estate’s legal fees were considerable (approximately £2m), illustrating the high-stakes nature of such inheritance disputes.

In conclusion, the court found against O’Herlihy, ruling that the claim lacked merit, that O’Herlihy was financially independent and that the sums claimed went beyond “maintenance” as set out in the 1975 Act. As the losing party, O’Herlihy was ordered to pay the estates costs, in the estimated sum of £2m.

Jeremy Ferris has specialist experience advising clients on claims arising out of Wills or Intestacy. An accredited CEDR Accredited Mediator, he welcomes instructions to act as an independent mediator and to apply his expertise to resolve a wide range of disputes.

For advice on challenging wills or bringing a claim in an estate please speak to one of our expert team today.