A recent High Court decision provides a useful reminder for private client lawyers and wealth advisers about the potential scope of claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, particularly in relation to individuals treated as a ‘child of the family’. Contentious trust and probate specialist John Lambe discusses the facts of the case and explains why this category of claimant is likely to appear more frequently in probate disputes as blended families become more common.
The statutory framework
Section 1(1)(d) of the 1975 Act allows a claim to be brought by:
a person (not being a child of the deceased) who, in relation to a family in which the deceased stood in the role of a parent, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family.
The provision can therefore capture stepchildren or individuals raised within a family unit where the deceased assumed a parental role.
The facts of O’Herlihy v Taylor
The claimant grew up living with his mother and the deceased (pictured) during a long-term relationship between the adults. The deceased later died leaving an estate worth more than £38 million, but his will left the residue entirely to his widow and others.
The claimant sought to bring a claim under the 1975 Act on the basis that he had been treated as the deceased’s son.
The evidence relied upon included:
- The deceased introducing the claimant to others as his son.
- The deceased mentoring the claimant and discussing his future role in the family business.
- Shared activities such as sport, shooting and time spent together discussing the deceased’s property interests.
- Financial support including payment of the claimant’s education costs.
The judge accepted that there was a real prospect that the claimant could establish that the deceased had treated him as a child within a family unit during the years they lived together.
Importantly, the statutory test only requires that the individual was treated as a child ‘at any time’ within such a family structure.
Why the claim failed
Despite the potential merits of the claimant’s standing under s.1(1)(d), the case ultimately failed on limitation grounds.
Under s.4 of the 1975 Act, a claim must normally be issued within six months of the grant of probate.
Here, the claim was brought several years after the deadline and after the estate had been administered and distributed. The court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time, finding the delay excessive and insufficiently explained.
Key takeaways for advisers
For private client practitioners and wealth managers, the case highlights several practical points:
- ‘Child of the family claims remain a real risk in blended families.
The statutory test focuses on the reality of the relationship rather than legal status.
- Evidence of parental treatment can arise from everyday family life.
Financial support, mentoring, education funding and social presentation as a child can all be relevant.
- Estate planning for complex families requires careful thought.
Where stepchildren or quasi-parental relationships exist, the potential for a 1975 Act claim should be considered during lifetime planning.
- Timing remains critical in contentious probate.
Even arguable claims may fail if proceedings are issued outside the statutory time limit.
As modern family structures continue to evolve, claims under s.1(1)(d) are likely to become more common. For advisers involved in succession planning, this category of claimant should not be overlooked.
About the author
John Lambe qualified as a solicitor in 2000 after originally teaching law at A-level and degree level. He joined Forbes Solicitors in 2020 and now co-leads the firm’s Contentious Trusts and Probate team alongside Tom Howcroft. With more than 25 years’ litigation experience, including over a decade specialising in contentious trusts and probate, John advises on complex disputes including Inheritance Act claims, proprietary estoppel, validity challenges and estate disputes. He is recognised by The Legal 500 as a Recommended Lawyer and Next Generation Partner.
