When a family member steps in to care for an ageing parent, it is usually an act of love, not a business arrangement. Yet in Rogers v Wills, the High Court ruled that long-term family care can, in certain circumstances, create a binding legal obligation to pay. Such a situation can arise even without a formal contract, as an estate may still owe compensation for the benefit received.
What happened
Bernadette Rogers, a retired nurse, took her 90-year-old mother, Sheila, into her home in Bristol after Sheila was found wandering on a road in Norfolk in a confused state. What began as a temporary stay became a long-term care arrangement lasting over two years. During this time, Sheila’s health declined significantly, and she required daily and often intimate care.
After Sheila’s death in 2020, her will divided the estate equally between her children and appointed her son, Andrew Wills, as executor.
Family members had repeatedly said that Bernadette should not be “out of pocket” for the care she was providing, and Sheila herself had insisted that she wished to “pay her way” and that her daughter should be “paid properly”.
Disputes later emerged within the family. Bernadette said that her mother and other relatives had agreed she would be paid a reasonable sum for her care. Andrew disagreed, insisting that the arrangement was purely domestic and not legally binding. Tensions deepened when Bernadette withdrew £100,000 from her mother’s bank account, claiming she had been authorised to do so.
A complete breakdown in the relationship between the siblings followed. Bernadette brought proceedings against her brother as executor, arguing that there was a contract for reasonable payment, or alternatively that the estate had been unjustly enriched by her unpaid work.
The court’s decision
The High Court found in Bernadette’s favour.
- The judge held that there was sufficient evidence from family discussions and Sheila’s own comments to show that the care was not intended to be gratuitous. This gave rise to an implied contract for services, entitling Bernadette to reasonable remuneration under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
- The court rejected arguments that Sheila lacked capacity to make such an agreement. HHJ Paul Matthews emphasised that a diagnosis of dementia does not automatically remove capacity, which must be assessed for each decision and proved to be absent with evidence. The court reaffirmed the presumption of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and found that Sheila remained capable of making binding arrangements.
- Even if no contract existed, the estate had still benefited from Bernadette’s services. The court held that Sheila had freely accepted her daughter’s care, knowing it was not intended to be a gift.
In doing so, the court drew a clear distinction between two restitutionary principles: failure of basis, which depends on a shared mistaken assumption, and free acceptance, which arises where someone knowingly accepts a benefit without paying for it. The latter applied here, since Sheila had knowingly accepted care with the understanding that payment would follow.
Although the exact amount of compensation was left for a later hearing, the court encouraged the parties to resolve the matter through mediation rather than further litigation.
The follow-up costs ruling
A month later, in Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1711 (Ch), the court ordered Andrew Wills to pay Bernadette’s legal costs of the liability trial. The judge noted that she was clearly the successful party and awarded an interim payment of £75,685.50, representing 90% of her approved costs budget.
The judgment also reminded executors that they are personally responsible for litigation costs unless they have obtained a Beddoe order – a formal court permission to use estate funds to defend or pursue proceedings.
Why this case matters
This decision outlines the legal obligations for family care and is a thoughtful reminder that goodwill and care within families can, over time, blur into legal and financial responsibility.
The case also illustrates how the courts will increasingly look at family care arrangements through the same lens as professional ones, especially where long-term support replaces formal care services. It highlights the importance of documenting intentions at an early stage to avoid costly disputes after death.
Practical lessons for families and advisers:
- Record any understanding about payment for family care in writing, even if it feels awkward.
- Consider a short written care or service agreement to avoid uncertainty later.
- Executors should seek legal advice early, particularly before spending estate funds on legal costs.
- Mediation can often achieve a fair resolution without the strain of further proceedings.
As more families take on caring roles, Rogers v Wills underlines the importance of clarity. Compassion and trust remain at the heart of family life, but they are best supported by clear agreements and early professional advice. In the end, a short conversation and a written understanding can prevent years of uncertainty and conflict.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
