When it comes to claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, timing is everything. The recent Chancery Division decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor is a striking illustration of just how unforgiving the courts can be when a claimant seeks to bring a claim years after the statutory deadline has passed.
In this case, the claimant attempted to bring a claim four and a half years out of time and the court refused permission under section 4 of the Act. But the judgment goes far beyond a simple procedural point. It offers a detailed exploration of the claimant’s prospects on the merits, the nature of “maintenance” and the weight the court places on delay and prejudice.
Let’s unpack what happened and why it matters.
Background: a high-value estate and a long-expired deadline
The deceased, Hugh Ian Taylor, died on 2 June 2019, leaving an estate worth approximately £38.5 million. His will left the entire residuary estate to his widow, the first defendant. The claimant, born in 1989, was not biologically related to the deceased but argued he had been treated as a child of the family during his mother’s relationship with the deceased between 1995 and 2004.
However, the relationship between the claimant and the deceased had ended by around 2012, with no further contact or financial support thereafter.
Probate was granted on 1 November 2019, meaning the six‑month limitation period expired on 1 May 2020. The claim was not issued until 14 October 2024.
By that time, the estate had long since been fully administered and distributed.
The legal framework: section 4 and the Berger factors
Under section 4 of the 1975 Act, the court may allow a claim to proceed out of time if “the circumstances of the case” justify it. The leading guidance comes from:
- Berger v Berger [2013]
- Cowan v Foreman [2019]
These cases emphasise a holistic assessment, including:
- The length and reasons for delay;
- Whether negotiations were ongoing;
- Whether the estate has been distributed;
- Prejudice to beneficiaries; and
- The merits of the underlying claim.
The court in O’Herlihy applied these principles rigorously.
Why the claim failed: no real prospect of success
The court held that the claimant had no real prospect of succeeding on his substantive claim under section 1(1)(d). Two findings were decisive:
- No obligations or responsibilities at the time of death
To qualify as a “child of the family,” the claimant needed to show that the deceased was maintaining him or had assumed ongoing responsibilities. The evidence showed:
- The relationship ended by 2012;
- No contact or support for the final seven years of the deceased’s life; and
- The claimant had been living independently.
The court concluded that any parental-type relationship had long since ceased.
- The claimant’s earning capacity met his maintenance needs
The claimant earned £70,000–£90,000 per year as a personal trainer. The court held that:
- His maintenance needs must be assessed by reference to the standard of living he could achieve from his own resources;
- The higher standard he enjoyed during childhood was irrelevant; and
- He was not in financial hardship.
This distinguished the case from Ilott v Blue Cross, where the claimant lived in genuine poverty.
Delay: “significant and unjustified”
Even if the claimant had a viable claim, the court found the delay impossible to justify.
Key points included:
- He knew of the will and the time limit;
- He instructed solicitors in 2020 but did not pursue a 1975 Act claim;
- Long periods of inactivity were unexplained; and
- His argument about impecuniosity was unconvincing, particularly given his income.
The court stressed that funding difficulties do not excuse years of delay, especially when alternative funding options were not explored.
Prejudice to the widow
The estate had been fully distributed years earlier. Reopening it would require the widow to:
- Return assets she had already received;
- Potentially unwind financial arrangements; and
- Endure renewed emotional strain after believing the matter was closed.
The court described this as both financial and psychological prejudice.
The outcome
The court refused permission under section 4 on two independent grounds:
- The claimant had no real prospect of success on the merits; and
- The Berger factors strongly weighed against granting permission.
The claim was therefore time barred.
Why this case matters
O’Herlihy v Taylor is a powerful reminder of several key principles:
- The six‑month time limit is strictly enforced;
- Claimants must act promptly, even if they are uncertain about their legal position;
- A historic parental relationship is not enough. There must be obligations at the time of death;
- High earning capacity can defeat a claim for “maintenance”; and
- Prejudice to beneficiaries carries significant weight.
For practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of early advice and swift action. For potential claimants, it underscores that delay, especially years of it, can be fatal.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is an Associate in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about 1975 act time limits, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.