A reality TV star and personal trainer’s claim for share of a £38 million estate left by his mother’s ex-boyfriend has no prospect of success, High Court judge Deputy Master William Henderson has ruled.

Lonan O’Herlihy (pictured) had claimed a £5 million share of the estate of Hugh Taylor, with whom his mother had a relationship between 1995 and 2003. Mr Taylor married his wife Jennifer in 2010 and left the bulk of his estate to his widow when he died in 2019.

Mr O’Herlihy claimed his mother’s ex was a father figure to him as a child and claimed “reasonable provision” of £5 million from the estate. He also sought to bring his claim out of time on the basis that he didn’t have the knowledge or financial means to lodge a claim within the usual six-month deadline after Mr Taylor’s death.

Asking for “reasonable financial provision for Lonan’s maintenance,” Mr O’Herlihy’s barrister Hugh Jeffery told the judge that Mr Taylor had assumed “parental responsibility” for him and had maintained him financially until the age of 22 or 23.

“Hugh’s considerable wealth derived principally from dealings in real estate,” he continued.

“He discussed his business interests frequently with Lonan and promised that Lonan would assume management of various parts of the empire with a view to inheritance of the whole.

“He gave Lonan every reason to expect continued support in a career in real estate.”

He said Mr O’Herlihy had made “important life choices,” including university studies, based on that assurance and that there is a “marked contrast between the lifestyle that Lonan was brought up to expect and his present financial precarity.”

Richard Wilson KC, for Jennifer Taylor, called the claim “opportunistic,” highlighting a specific list Mr O’Herlihy had sent to the widow setting out what he wanted from Mr Taylor’s estate.

It included a £3 million property in Queen’s Gate Place, South Kensington, a 1969-70 Mercedes 280SL Pagoda worth £250,000, a Patek Philippe watch, a Melehior D’hondecoeter painting and £800,000 for the purchase of an investment property, he said.

“This is not a claim for reasonable provision for his maintenance,” he continued. “It is his wish list of greed – houses, cars, watches, this is a world away from reasonable provision.

“His approach seems to be: this is a large estate, let’s give Mr O’Herlihy a big chunk of it.”

He also insisted that Mr Taylor had “disavowed” any obligations to financially maintain Mr O’Herlihy in an email sent in 2012.

Mr O’Herlihy was seeking permission to bring his claim out of time on the basis that he didn’t have the knowledge or financial means to lodge a claim within the usual six-month deadline after Mr Taylor’s death.

Giving his ruling and dismissing the case this week, the judge said it had no realistic prospect of succeeding, even if it had been brought in time.

He said:

“The claimant asserts that he was treated as a child of the family by the deceased and received emotional, educational and financial support from the deceased during his childhood and into early adulthood.

“I consider that there is a real prospect of the claimant’s case that the deceased treated him as a son or stepson being accepted in respect of the period from 1995 to 2005. 

“Mr Jeffery submitted that the appropriate standard of living by reference to which the claimant’s financial needs should be assessed was a high one which was commensurate with his upbringing.

“I reject that submission and consider that at, and after, the death of the deceased, the appropriate standard of living for the claimant was and remains that which he was capable of and did enjoy from his own resources and earnings.  

“The high standard of living which he enjoyed by reason of the deceased’s support ceased in 2012, some seven years before the deceased died.

“By 2012 or 2013, the claimant knew that no provision would be made for him.

“After 2012, the claimant was emancipated from the deceased. He lived a separate life based on his own earnings, resources and needs, with no assistance from the deceased.

“At the time of the deceased’s death, the claimant was aged very nearly 30. Then and thereafter, he was capable of and did earn his own living with a standard of living appropriate to that.”

Dismissing the argument that Mr O’Herlihy had acted to his detriment on the basis of his expectation that he would inherit a share of Mr Taylor’s property empire, the judge continued:

“As a matter of fact there is no real prospect of the claimant establishing that he acted to his detriment or prejudiced himself in reliance on the representations.  

“The most that could be said is that he chose to study property and construction rather than some other subject at university because of the deceased’s representations.

“But there is no evidence that by studying property and construction, the claimant in any way acted to his detriment or prejudiced himself.”

He added:

“The claimant has no real prospect of establishing that at the relevant time – i.e. the deceased’s death – the deceased had any obligations or responsibilities to him.

“There is no significant counterbalancing consideration of very straitened circumstances or real poverty for the claimant.

“The claimant has no real prospect of establishing other than that he earns and is capable of earning an income which is sufficient to provide for the cost of his daily living at the standard of living appropriate to him, that is to say the standard which he created for himself after his separation from the deceased in 2012.”

In relation to allegations that Mrs Taylor’s “conduct caused the isolation of the deceased from the claimant and others” the judge said:

“In the present case the accuracy or otherwise of the…allegations made by the claimant remain unresolved.  

“However, even if those allegations were made good, they would not affect my reasons given above for holding that the claimant has no real prospect of establishing that the appropriate standard of living by reference to which his financial needs should be assessed was a high one which was commensurate with his upbringing.”

He went on to order Mr O’Herlihy to pay £370,000 up front towards the legal costs bill, which currently stands at over £2 million pending a full assessment by a costs judge.

The total includes around £1.5 million being claimed by Mrs Taylor’s lawyers, which Mr O’Herlihy’s barrister Mr Jeffery criticised as “astronomical” and “completely out of proportion with the nature of the claim,” along with £163,000 claimed by the administrator of the estate, who was joined as a party to the action, and £355,000 owed to Mr O’Herlihy’s own lawyers.

Speaking after the case, Mr O’Herlihy insisted he had never been motivated by greed.

“My earliest memories of a father figure in my life are of Hugh,” he said outside court.

“He raised me as his son and gave me some of the most precious moments imaginable. I feel fortunate to have had him in my life.

“Bringing this case was never about seeking an unjust financial benefit. What I hoped for was simply to retain a small part of what Hugh had always indicated would be set aside for me.

“The circumstances in Hugh’s final years were complicated and that I was not able to remain in contact with him despite many attempts to do so.

“He was my father from five years old until a sudden and unexplained pause on the relationship at 22. I hope to one day find out where he is buried so I can pay my respects.

“Despite the outcome, I remain deeply proud of the role Hugh played in my life. In time, I hope to acquire and preserve some of the items sold by the estate that once belonged to him, so that part of his legacy can remain connected to those who knew and cared for him.

“This process has taken a heavy toll over several years, but I respect the decision of the court and I bear no ill will towards Mrs Taylor. I now intend to focus on moving forward with my life and work.”