Can an adult who was treated as a ‘child of the family’ bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 after an estate is distributed?

The recent High Court decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch) provides important guidance on the rights of adults who were once treated as ‘children of the family’ to bring late claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Inheritance Act”), even after an estate has already been distributed. The case highlights both the potential for such claims and the significant hurdles potential claimants will face, especially where there has been delay and the estate has already been distributed.

The Inheritance Act allows certain categories of individuals, including those treated as a “child of the family”, to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from a deceased person’s estate where no reasonable financial provision has been left for them either by Will or intestacy.

However, the Inheritance Act imposes a strict time limit: applications must usually be made within six months of the grant of probate. Out-of-time applications are possible, but only with the permission of the court, and only in exceptional circumstances.

The case facts

In O’Herlihy v Taylor, the claimant, who was 36 years old, brought a claim against the estate of his mother’s former partner, worth approximately £38 million. Their relationship had ended in 2005, but it was accepted that the claimant had been treated as a ‘child of the family’ of the deceased between 1996 and 2002, notwithstanding that the claimant had ceased all contact with the deceased some seven years before his death. Although the deceased had financially supported the claimant between 1995 and 2012, he had no obligations to or responsibility for him at the time of his death in 2019.

The claim was issued four and a half years after the expiry of the statutory time limit, by which point the estate had already been distributed in full.

The Court, led by Deputy Master Henderson, considered whether to grant permission for the late claim. The claimant argued that he was unaware of his right to bring a claim and blamed poor legal advice for the delay. However, the Deputy Master noted that claimants are expected to take proactive steps to ascertain their rights and found no compelling reason for the lengthy delays. The six-month period expired in May 2020 and even after the claimant became aware of the possibility of making a claim, it was not issued until October 2024 and there was further delay before it was served.

The Court also assessed the substantive merits of the claim. The Deputy Master found that the claimant, as an adult capable of earning a living, was able to maintain himself at a standard of living he had set for himself post-separation from the deceased from his own resources and earnings. The fact that he had not been financially dependent on the deceased for several years was significant.

A critical consideration was the prejudice against those who had already inherited the estate. The Deputy Master noted the significant disruption and unfairness that would arise from disturbing the settled distribution of the estate after so many years.

The Court also addressed whether promises allegedly made by the deceased to the claimant could bolster his case. It concluded that, while such promises can be relevant, they were not applicable in this claim.

The take-away points

• Late claims are possible, but exceptional: The Inheritance Act does allow for late applications, but only where there are strong reasons for the delay and the claim itself has real merit.
• Merit is essential: The Court will not grant permission for a late claim unless there is a reasonable prospect of success – mere assertions of need will not suffice, especially for independent adults.
• Delay and distribution both matter: The longer the delay and the greater the prejudice to those who have inherited, the less likely the Court is to grant permission.
• Evidence is scrutinised: Courts will closely assess both documentary and circumstantial evidence (including social media) to test the credibility of evidence.

For anyone who may have been treated as a ‘child of the family’ and believes they have been unfairly left out of a will or estate, O’Herlihy v Taylor is a timely reminder that swift action is essential. If you believe you have a claim under the Inheritance Act, seek specialist legal advice as soon as possible – delay can be fatal to your prospects.

For solicitors and legal professionals, this judgment offers a useful precedent on the threshold for permission to bring out-of-time claims and the importance of careful, early advice to potential claimants, as well as reminding Will writers of possible claims from those treated as a “child of the family”. The Inheritance Act gives no minimum time period for this – unlike a cohabitee which must be for a minimum of two years.

If you have questions or concerns about the issues raised in this article, please contact Annabel Clark.