A recent High Court decision has highlighted the potential legal consequences of informal family care arrangements. In Rogers v Wills, an adult daughter who provided extensive care to her elderly mother was awarded £127,500 from her mother’s estate, despite there being no agreement as to the exact amount she would be paid.
The Background
Between 2017 and 2020, Bernadette Rogers (a retired nurse) cared for her mother, Sheila Wills, whose health had deteriorated significantly and who was later diagnosed with vascular dementia. Sheila wished to remain in her own home and preferred to be cared for by family rather than professional carers.
Ms Rogers’ case was that her mother had agreed she would be properly compensated for the care she provided, although no specific rate or sum had ever been agreed.
Following Sheila’s death, a dispute arose between Ms Rogers and her brother, who was acting as executor of the estate. Ms Rogers subsequently brought a claim against the estate seeking payment for the care she had provided over approximately 850 days.
The High Court found in her favour and later assessed the value of the care at £127,500.
Can Family Agreements Be Legally Binding?
Many people assume that arrangements between family members are informal and cannot be enforced through the courts. However, that is not always correct.
For a contract to exist, there must generally be an intention to create legal relations. While courts are often reluctant to find contractual obligations within ordinary family arrangements, they will do so where the evidence shows that the parties intended their agreement to have legal consequences.
In Rogers v Wills, the court concluded that the arrangement went far beyond ordinary family assistance. Ms Roger’s had undertaken substantial caring responsibilities over an extended period, and her mother intended that she should receive payment for that work.
The decision demonstrates that family relationships do not automatically prevent a legally binding agreement from arising.
What If No Amount Was Agreed?
One of the most significant aspects of this case was that no specific payment had been agreed between mother and daughter.
Despite this, the court held that there was an agreement that Ms Rogers would be reasonably remunerated. Once that entitlement was established, the court was able to determine what constituted reasonable payment by considering the nature of the care provided and the cost of comparable care services. The absence of a fixed fee therefore did not prevent recovery.
However, this does not mean that every family carer can bring a successful claim. Whether payment is recoverable will depend on the evidence and the particular circumstances of each case.
The Alternative Claim: Unjust Enrichment
The court also considered whether, in the alternative, Ms Rogers could recover payment through the legal principle of unjust enrichment.
Although the contractual claim succeeded, the court indicated that the estate would have been liable to compensate her even if no enforceable contract had existed. This was because her mother had received a substantial benefit from the care provided and it would have been unjust for the estate to retain that benefit without payment.
That said, unjust enrichment claims remain fact-specific and do not create a general right for relatives to charge family members for ordinary acts of kindness, support or assistance.
Implications for Executors and Beneficiaries
This decision has important implications for those administering estates. Executors are responsible for identifying and dealing with liabilities before distributing estate assets. A claim for unpaid care may represent a significant debt that must be taken into account before beneficiaries receive their inheritance. Beneficiaries may therefore receive less than expected if a valid claim is established.
The case also illustrates how disagreements over financial arrangements can develop into costly and emotionally damaging family disputes after a loved one’s death.
Practical Steps Families Should Consider
Families can reduce the risk of future disputes by addressing care arrangements openly and documenting them clearly.
In particular, they should consider:
- Recording any agreement for payment (or that there will be no payment) in writing.
- Agreeing a rate of pay or a method for calculating remuneration.
- Keeping records of care provided and expenses incurred.
- Obtaining advice where questions arise about capacity.
- Avoiding assumptions that future inheritance will compensate a family member for care.
Clear documentation can help prevent misunderstandings and provide valuable evidence if a dispute later arises.
Conclusion
The decision in Rogers v Wills does not mean that children are automatically entitled to charge their parents for care. Many family members provide support without expecting payment, and most caregiving arrangements will not give rise to legal claims.
However, the case confirms that where there is evidence of an agreement that a family member will be paid for providing substantial care, the courts may be prepared to enforce that agreement and award significant remuneration, even where the precise amount was never agreed.
For families, executors and beneficiaries alike, the message is clear: where care is being provided with an expectation of payment, it is far better to address the arrangement during the parent’s lifetime than to leave the issue to be resolved after death.
This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should always be obtained on the facts of an individual case.
