Challenges against wills and claims against estates have increased over recent years, particularly in blended families where careful estate planning is often lacking.
Under the framework of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, certain groups of individuals may challenge the distribution of an estate if they believe reasonable financial provision has not been made for them, particularly if they were supported by the deceased during their lifetime.
For public figures, the risk of a claim is amplified by public scrutiny, blended families, informal arrangements, lifetime gifting, and assumptions about wealth that invite challenge. Careful lifetime planning strengthens the estate’s position in defending testamentary disputes.
The litigation risk landscape
Claims under the 1975 Act are inherently fact sensitive. Courts consider multiple factors, including the claimant’s financial needs and resources, the size and nature of the estate, and any obligations the deceased had towards the claimant. For high-profile individuals, two features often complicate matters.
First, financial affairs are often more complex than they appear. Assets may be held in trusts, overseas structures, corporate entities, or through licensing arrangements, making it challenging to show clearly how provision has been made.
Second, personal relationships may not align neatly with legal categories. Long-term unmarried or non-civil partnership partners, estranged family members, or dependants outside traditional definitions may still have standing to bring claims. Where expectations have been created during the deceased’s lifetime—whether explicitly or implicitly—the absence of provision can become a focal point for litigation.
The role of contemporaneous statements
One of the most effective yet underutilised tools in mitigating claims is a contemporaneous statement or statements explaining the reasoning behind testamentary decisions. Such statements, while not legally binding, carry substantial evidential weight in demonstrating that the testator considered their obligations and made deliberate, rational choices. Evidence supporting the exclusion of a particular individual—due to behaviour, financial or reputational abuse, or their financial independence—further strengthens the estate’s position.
For high-profile individuals, these statements should go beyond general explanations and address:
- The nature of relationships with potential claimants.
- Financial support provided during lifetime.
- Rationale for inclusion or exclusion.
- Consideration of competing interests, including business or brand continuity.
This is particularly important where decisions may appear counterintuitive—for example, leaving a substantial estate primarily to a charitable foundation, family trust, or a limited group of beneficiaries.
Medical assessments and safeguarding testamentary capacity
Another potential line of challenge is to dispute the validity of a will on the basis that the testator lacked the required mental capacity at the time it was made. To pre-empt such claims, obtaining a medical assessment at the time of will preparation is highly advisable. This can demonstrate the testator’s clarity of mind and protect against allegations of undue influence, alcohol or drug dependency, or cognitive impairment. For high-profile individuals, who often provide instructions through managers or other intermediaries, attending the will planning meetings personally, and ensuring these interactions are fully documented, can make the process more robust and reduce challenges.
Public example and lessons learned
In the recent case of O’Herlihy v Taylor, a claim was brought under the 1975 Act by the claimant, Made in Chelsea Star - Lonan O’Herlihy, against the estate of his late former father-in-law, Hugh Taylor.
The claimant argued that he had been financially dependent on the deceased during the period of the deceased’s marriage to the claimant’s mother. He maintained that they had at one time lived together as a family unit. However, following the separation and divorce from his mother, the relationship between the claimant and the deceased came to an end. Despite this, the claimant brought a claim against the estate on the basis that he had been treated as a “child of the family”, seeking provision in the sum of £5 million.
The High Court dismissed the claim, citing several factors, including the significant delay in bringing the claim (over four years), the fact that the estate had already been distributed, and the overall limited merits of the case.
The case illustrates that, whilst the claim was ultimately dismissed, contemporaneous statements evidencing the deceased’s intentions may have assisted in undermining the claimant’s position at an earlier stage and potentially reduced the scope for argument. Whilst such documents would not necessarily prevent a claim being brought under the 1975 Act outright, taking professional advice when structuring testamentary arrangements can help mitigate the risk of disputes and minimise the cost and disruption associated with contentious probate proceedings.
Planning strategies to mitigate claims
- Early and regular review of estate plan - Changes in personal relationships, financial circumstances, or public profile should trigger reassessment of estate planning documents.
- Use of trusts and lifetime structures - Trusts help manage expectations, provide for dependants in a controlled manner, and reduce the visibility of outright distributions that might attract challenge.
- Clear articulation of wishes - A letter of wishes or formal contemporaneous statement provides context, particularly where decisions may be contested.
- Consistency between lifetime behaviour and testamentary provision - Courts scrutinise whether actions during lifetime align with will provisions. Sudden or unexplained departures from established support patterns are more vulnerable to challenge.
- Medical and procedural safeguards - Obtaining medical confirmation of testamentary capacity, documenting the absence of outside influence, and ensuring personal attendance at planning meetings will provide an additional layer of protection.
Final thoughts
For high-profile individuals, the question is not simply how to distribute wealth, but how to do so in a way that withstands both legal and public scrutiny. While claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 cannot entirely be eliminated, taking expert legal advice will significantly reduce the risk.
Our expert Private Client team advises individuals across the creative industries on estate planning involving complex family dynamics and the careful structuring of creative assets. For further information, or to discuss how we can assist, please contact Stephen Patch or Isabel Solarte.
In addition, our dedicated Contentious Probate team provides advice on all aspects of estate and testamentary disputes, including safeguarding the estate and working collaboratively with our Private Client team to prepare statements and evidence that anticipate and address potential claims. For further information, please contact Jennifer Laskey, Lewis Addison or Anna Kelly.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
