The High Court’s decision in Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) is an important reminder that caring for an elderly relative can give rise to a substantial claim against their estate. Importantly, the judgment dealt only with liability. The value of the claim was to be decided separate and will be considered in another blog.
The Background
The claim arose following the death of Ursula Wills, known as Sheila, in April 2020. After the death of her husband in 2012, Sheila continued to live independently in Norfolk. By 2017 concerns were growing about her welfare. At the age of 90, she was becoming increasingly vulnerable and forgetful. Matters came to a head when she was found wandering outside in a confused state looking for her late husband. Initially, Sheila moved temporarily to stay with her daughter, Bernadette Rogers, in Bristol. What was intended as a short-term arrangement gradually evolved into a permanent one. Over the following two and a half years, Bernadette became her mother’s primary carer as Sheila’s health deteriorated.
Was Bernadette Entitled to be Paid?
The central issue before the court was whether Bernadette was entitled to payment from Sheila’s estate for the care she had provided. Like many family care arrangements, there was no formal written agreement setting out what would be paid and when. However, the court examined extensive evidence, including family communications and witness testimony. There was evidence that Sheila had repeatedly stated that she wanted Bernadette to be paid for looking after her and did not expect her daughter to provide years of care for nothing. WhatsApp messages between family members also demonstrated an understanding that Bernadette should be compensated.
The £100,000 Withdrawal
The dispute escalated after Sheila’s death when Bernadette withdrew £100,000 from funds that had previously belonged to her mother, maintaining that the payment represented remuneration for years of unpaid care. The withdrawal sparked a bitter dispute between siblings and ultimately led to criminal proceedings. Bernadette was prosecuted for theft but was acquitted by a jury at Bristol Crown Court.
The High Court Decision
HHJ Paul Matthews concluded in the High Court civil proceedings that Bernadette did have a valid claim. The court found that a binding agreement had arisen between Sheila and Bernadette. Although no specific sum had ever been agreed, Sheila intended that Bernadette should be remunerated for the care she provided and Bernadette undertook those responsibilities on that basis. The judge held that the law was capable of implying a reasonable level of payment for the services provided. Importantly, the court also held that Bernadette would have succeeded even if no binding contract had existed because the estate would otherwise have been unjustly enriched.
Lessons for Practitioners
The case provides several important practical lessons. Family arrangements should be documented wherever possible. Expectations about payment, reimbursement and inheritance frequently become sources of dispute after death. Contemporaneous evidence such as messages, emails and notes can prove crucial. Executors should also be cautious before assuming care provided by a family member was entirely gratuitous.
What Next?
The court in this judgment determined that Bernadette was entitled to be paid, but did not decide how much that payment should be. The subsequent quantum stage was necessary to address how years of informal family care should be valued and what constitutes reasonable remuneration. We will examine the quantification stage and the court approach to valuing long-term family care claims against estates in the (part 2) follow-up blog.