The High Court confirmed in 2025 that informal family care agreements can create enforceable claims against an estate. See part 1 – blog (Rogers v Wills (part 1): When Family Care Creates a Claim Against an Estate). In part 2 this blog examines the recent (Agg 2026) quantum decision and its implications for executors, beneficiaries and contentious probate practitioners.
The 2026 quantum decision confirms that where a deceased person agrees that a family member will be paid for providing care, the courts canenforce that agreement and award substantial remuneration, even in the absence of a written contract or agreed fee.
Background
(See Part –1 blog for full details). Bernadette Rogers cared for her mother, Sheila Wills, during the final years of her life. In earlier proceedings, the High Court found that Sheila had agreed her daughter would be ‘paid properly’ for her care. The remaining issue was the value of that entitlement.
The Care Provided
The court found that the claimant provided extensive care including supervision, personal care, medication management, attendance at medical appointments, meal preparation, housekeeping, transport, companionship, dementia support and end-of-life care.
Bernadette provided Sheila with accommodation in her Bristol home from September 2017 until her death in April 2020. She could not leave Sheila alone due to concerns about her safety and confusion.
Bernadete gave up childcare commitments for grandchildren, resulting in loss of income and disruption to family arrangements. She Adapted the family home, including changing flooring and making adjustments to reduce the risk of injury from falls. She and her husband also changed vehicles because their existing car was unsuitable for transporting Sheila safely.
As Sheila’s health deteriorated, Bernadette provided:
- Assistance with mobility.
- Support with incontinence and later double incontinence.
- Help with eating and daily living activities.
- Supervision due to memory problems and dementia.
- Support when Sheila became confused and unable to recognise places or navigate the house.
- The court specifically noted that by 2019 Sheila required nursing care and extensive supervision.
Medical and Nursing Care
The judgment records a remarkable number of appointments and interventions arranged or attended by Bernadette, including:
- GP appointments.
- Neurology assessments.
- Memory clinic referrals.
- Colorectal surgery consultations for rectal prolapse.
- Eye hospital and glaucoma appointments.
- Audiology referrals.
- Dermatology and skin cancer treatment.
- Hospital admissions and emergency attendances.
- Monitoring of diabetes, kidney disease, infections and other chronic conditions.
The judge noted that Bernadette, a trained nurse and her retired GP husband were heavily involved in coordinating and managing Sheila’s healthcare throughout this period.
The court also recognised emotional Support and Sheila’s strong desire to stay with Bernadette rather than move into a care home. The companionship Bernadette provided, relieving Sheila’s loneliness and isolation. Bernadette’s efforts to maintain contact between Sheila and other family members. Holidays and family visits arranged to enhance Sheila’s quality of life.
Finally During Sheila’s final illness in April 2020 care levels with end of life care increased.
Contractual Care vs Gratuitous Care
A key aspect of the judgment was the distinction between gratuitous family care and care provided under a contractual arrangement. The court held that this was a contractual debt claim rather than a personal injury claim for gratuitous care. Accordingly, the usual discounts applied in gratuitous care cases did not apply.
Assessing a Reasonable Fee
The court considered various commercial comparators, including live-in carers, home care services and nursing home fees. It ultimately concluded that £150 per day represented a reasonable charge for the services actually provided and remained materially below the likely commercial cost of equivalent care (taking into account in the overall mix the accommodation and food provision in Bernadette’s own home.
Decision
The claimant was awarded £127,500 plus interest, representing £150 per day for 850 days of contractual care.
Key Takeaways
- Informal family arrangements may be legally enforceable.
- Care claims can significantly reduce the value of an estate.
- Contemporaneous evidence such as messages and medical records is often decisive.
- Executors should carefully investigate alleged care agreements before distributing estate assets.
Conclusion
This decision is a notable addition to the case law concerning family care arrangements and disputes with the executors of anestate post death. It demonstrates the courts’ willingness to enforce genuine agreements for care and highlights the financial exposure that estates may face where such arrangements are not formally documented.