As featured this week in mainstream news in Rogers v Wills, the High Court awarded a daughter £127,500 after finding that she had cared for her elderly mother under an informal agreement that she would be “paid properly” for doing so.
The Court found that this was not simply a case of occasional help between family members. Over 850 days, the daughter provided extensive care, accommodation, transport and day-to-day support. Comparing those services with the cost of professional care, the Court concluded that she had effectively provided a level of care that would otherwise have cost substantially more if obtained from commercial care providers. In those circumstances, £150 per day was considered a reasonable amount to pay for the care she had provided.
The decision shows that informal arrangements between family members can sometimes be legally enforceable where there is clear evidence that payment was intended, even without a written contract.
Background
The Claimant cared for her elderly mother from 2017 until her death in 2020. During that time, her mother lived with her and suffered from a range of medical conditions, including vascular dementia, mobility issues and significant frailty. The care provided extended well beyond occasional assistance and included personal care, medication management, transport, companionship and round-the-clock supervision.
An earlier Court decision found that the mother and daughter had reached an informal agreement that the daughter would be “paid properly” for the care she provided, although no specific figure had been agreed. The only question left for the court was how much that payment should be.
The Court’s Approach
The Court emphasised that this was “not a case of occasional assistance between family members“, being the kind of support often provided purely out of love and affection. Instead, there had been an agreement that the daughter would be paid for the care she provided. The Court therefore considered the nature and extent of that care and compared it with the cost of obtaining similar services from professional care providers.
Evidence was considered from live-in care providers, nursing homes and other care arrangements. The judge concluded that the claimant had effectively provided a live-in care service, as well as accommodation, meals, transport and companionship.
Although professional care on a comparable basis could have cost considerably more, the daughter claimed £150 per day. The court noted that “the cost of obtaining equivalent care and support from third-party providers would have been substantially greater than the amount claimed“, finding the claimant’s proposed rate to fall “comfortably within the range of reasonable remuneration“.
The case highlights several important points:
- The absence of a formal written contract does not preclude a finding that nonetheless a contract existed, where there is clear evidence that payment was intended. When deciding how much should be paid, courts may look at the market value of the care and support that was provided, rather than simply treating it as unpaid family assistance. A distinction was drawn between the approach taken in this case and that commonly adopted in personal injury care claims.
- Disputes are more likely to arise where expectations about payment have not been discussed and recorded clearly during a person’s lifetime.
- Keeping clear records of any agreement can help to avoid uncertainty and conflict after a loved one’s death.
- The emotive issues surrounding family care arrangements, living at home and the costs of care can be difficult for estates to navigate, in this case at great cost both emotionally and financially for the family. Here, the daughter was initially charged with theft and then went through two civil actions before the outcome was determined. There is understood to be an appeal still pending on the award.
Conclusion
Many people care for family members out of love and without expecting anything in return.
However, Rogers v Wills shows that where there is an understanding that care will be paid for, the courts may be prepared to enforce that arrangement and award substantial sums from an estate.
The case serves as an important reminder that expectations around payment would be best discussed and recorded clearly, particularly where a family member is taking on significant caring responsibilities over a prolonged period.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised within this article, please contact us to speak to a member of our Contentious Probate team.
