{"id":321800,"date":"2025-12-17T23:20:09","date_gmt":"2025-12-17T23:20:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/321800\/"},"modified":"2025-12-17T23:20:09","modified_gmt":"2025-12-17T23:20:09","slug":"made-in-chelsea-star-lonan-oherlihy-sues-childhood-father-figures-widow-for-5m","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/321800\/","title":{"rendered":"Made in Chelsea star Lonan O’Herlihy sues childhood father figure’s widow for \u00a35m"},"content":{"rendered":"

Made In Chelsea star Lonan O’Herlihy has sued the widow of the man who was his father figure during his childhood after being missed out of the will almost seven years ago<\/p>\n

20:26, 17 Dec 2025Updated 20:27, 17 Dec 2025<\/p>\n

\"MadeMade In Chelsea star Lonan O’Herlihy was in court today(Image:
\n E4
\n )<\/p>\n

Made In Chelsea<\/a> star Lonan O’Herlihy has sued the widow of the man who was his father figure during his childhood. The personal trainer, 36, who was known as the Posh PT during his time on the hit show, was left out of Hugh Taylor’s will.<\/p>\n

The property dealer left a \u00a338million estate, which includes a World War II Hawker Hurricane<\/a> aircraft, classic cars and high-end properties, following his death in 2019, the majority of which was bequeathed to his wife Jennifer Taylor. Prior to his marriage to Ms Taylor, Hugh was in a ‘committed relationship’ with O’Herlihy’s mother from 1995 until 2003.<\/p>\n

Lonan, who starred on Made In Chelsea alongside regulars like Spencer Matthews<\/a> and Binky Felstead<\/a>, is now suing Ms Taylor for \u00a35 million and told the court: “Hugh was a father to me, and I was a son to him.”<\/p>\n

READ MORE: Jamie Laing slammed after swipe at \u00a36,000 a night maternity ward<\/a>READ MORE: Where ITV I’m A Celebrity winners are now – affairs, marriage and career U-turns<\/a>\"TiffanyMade In Chelsea star Lonan O’Herlihy with his former co-star’s Tiffany Watson, James Dunmore and Sam Thompson(Image: Getty Images Europe)<\/p>\n

The TV star’s barrister argued that Taylor had a “parental responsibility” to him whilst he was in a relationship with his mother, and it was later claimed that during that time, Lonan was supported by him financially until his early twenties. He added: “He gave Lonan every reason to expect continued support in a career in real estate. Lonan made important life choices, including his university studies, in reliance upon those assurances.”<\/p>\n

“Hugh’s considerable wealth derived principally from dealings in real estate. 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.” It’s also been alleged that Lonan started to be “cut out” of the businessman’s life and that Ms Taylor stopped him from attending the funeral.<\/p>\n

Despite this, Richard Wilson KC, Taylor’s lawyer, argued that the claim was nothing short of “opportunistic.”<\/p>\n

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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

\"LonanLonan O’Herlihy was in court today(Image: Champion News)\"LonanLonan was known as the Posh PT on the show(Image:
\n FACEBOOK
\n )<\/p>\n

“The claimant’s claim is truly fanciful. It is inconceivable that he would be awarded upon a claim for reasonable financial provision for his maintenance capital assets in excess of \u00a35m, including two properties, a classic car, a luxury watch and a painting. These have nothing to do with the claimant discharging the costs of his daily living. Even if he were making more modest demands, the claim would be hopeless because, on any analysis, the claimant does not have any need for maintenance.<\/p>\n

“The claimant is 36 years old, university educated, in good health, independent, earns circa \u00a370,000pa net of tax, is without any dependants and should have good future earning prospects. Even if one accepts the claimant’s case that he was, for a period, a ‘child of the family’, this relationship ended in 2002 – some 17 years before the deceased’s death – when the deceased and Mrs O’Herlihy separated.<\/p>\n

“It is also brought well out of time, following a substantial delay and after the estate has been distributed. And there is no good reason for the claimant having failed to bring it sooner.” The hearing continues.<\/p>\n

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok<\/a>, Snapchat<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, Twitter<\/a>, Facebook<\/a>, YouTube<\/a> and Threads<\/a>.<\/p>\n