A Made in Chelsea star is facing an “astronomical” £2m court bill after losing an inheritance battle over his mother’s ex-partner’s £38m fortune.
Lonan O’Herlihy, known as the “Posh PT”, had sought £5m from the estate of Hugh Taylor, whom he regarded as his “dad”.
Mr Taylor, a multimillionaire, died in 2019, leaving behind an estate that included classic cars, high-end properties, and a Second World War-era Hawker Hurricane aircraft. Almost all of his wealth was bequeathed to his widow, Jennifer Taylor, under a 2015 will.
Mr O’Herlihy, 36, whose mother was with Mr Taylor between 1995 and 2003, sued the widow as executor. He claimed that Mr Taylor was a “father figure” during his childhood and sought “reasonable provision” from the estate.
While accused in court of drawing up “a wishlist of greed”, Mr O’Herlihy maintained that he desired a “legacy” to remember the man he regarded as his “dad”.
The personal trainer argued that he needed the £5m to maintain an “appropriate” standard of living. The High Court heard that he grew up in Mr Taylor’s Tudor manor house, with his private school fees and university education funded by his mother’s then-partner.
Even after he and his mum split, Mr O’Herlihy remained close with Mr Taylor, he said, receiving “extravagant birthday gifts” from him, including a £5,000 watch and a £40,000 Audi.
But the TV star said he was gradually “cut out” of Mr Taylor’s life after the older man married wife Jennifer in 2010.
He said that his current financial state is now “precarious” and asked for a cut from the estate worth £5m under the 1975 Inheritance Act by way of “maintenance”, to let him live the lifestyle he became accustomed to when under Mr Taylor’s wing.
Earlier this week, he lost that fight, after lawyers for Jennifer labelled his claim “opportunistic”.
High Court judge Deputy Master William Henderson ruled his case had “no prospect of success” and that Mr Taylor had no responsibilities towards Lonan by the time of his death.
Any expectation of his sharing in his mum’s ex’s riches should have been abandoned by 2012 when Mr Taylor sent his mum an email disavowing any responsibility towards him, the judge found, concluding that an “appropriate standard of living” for Mr O’Herlihy is one he is capable of earning through his own work, rather than that of an heir to millions.
On top of that, the judge has ordered Mr O’Herlihy to pick up the legal costs bill for the trial, which the court heard total more than £2m. That figure has been branded “astronomical” by the star’s legal team.
It includes £1.5m claimed by the widow’s lawyers, £163,000 by the administrator of the estate, Keith Upsdell, who was joined as a party to the action, and £355,000 owed to Mr O’Herlihy’s own lawyers.
Speaking afterwards, Mr O’Herlihy insisted that the case had never been about 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 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.”
Reality TV star Mr O’Herlihy joined the Made in Chelsea cast for its eighth series in 2014, starring alongside the likes of Spencer Matthews and Alexandra “Binky” Felstead.
The court heard his painter mother, Pamela, had been in a “committed romantic relationship” with Hugh Taylor between 1995 and 2003. During that time, she, Lonan and his brother Rogan lived as “a family unit”.
Mr Taylor, a property dealer and classic car and aeroplane enthusiast, died in 2019, leaving behind a net estate worth £38,540,357, including the proceeds of sale of his Grade-I listed Tudor mansion, Eastington Hall, near Upton upon Severn, Gloucestershire, which he bought for £3.15m in 1997.
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.
Mr Taylor had paid him a monthly allowance of £500 until 2012, gave him his first car in 2006, and gave him a £5,000 watch for his 18th birthday and a £40,000 Audi for his 21st in 2010, said the barrister.
“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”.
While the TV star earns around £90,000 a year through his training business, he has “no capital assets whatsoever” and owes debts of around £170,000, he said.
Richard Wilson KC, for the widow, however, 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 £3m 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 wishlist 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 did not have the knowledge or financial means to lodge a claim within the usual six-month deadline after Mr Taylor’s death.
.jpeg)
Giving his ruling and throwing out the reality star’s 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 said: “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 continued: “The claimant has no real prospect of establishing that at the relevant time – ie 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 the allegations that Jennifer’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 the reality star to pay £370,000 up front towards the legal costs bill, which currently totals over £2m, pending a full assessment by a costs judge.
That includes around £1.5m being claimed by the widow’s lawyers, which Mr O’Herlihy’s barrister Mr Jeffery criticised as “astronomical” and “completely out of proportion with the nature of the claim”.
