Background
Bernadette Rogers began caring for her mother, Ursula Wills, known as Sheila, in 2017. When the possibility of Sheila returning home with live-in carers was explored, she instead asked to live with Bernadette, saying that she wanted to “pay her way” and that Bernadette would be “paid properly” for looking after her. No specific amount was agreed. Bernadette cared for Sheila until her death in April 2020. She subsequently transferred £100,000 from her mother’s accounts, maintaining that this represented part-payment for the care she had provided. The money was later restored to the estate and Bernadette was prosecuted for theft, but acquitted in October 2022.
In May 2023, Bernadette brought civil proceedings against Sheila’s estate to establish whether she was contractually entitled to payment and, if so, the value of the care she had provided.
When can a family arrangement become contractual?
Agreements between family members are often assumed to be based on trust, affection or mutual support rather than an intention to create legal relations. Rogers v Wills, however, demonstrates that the existence of a family relationship is not determinative.
The question is whether, viewed objectively, the parties’ words, conduct and surrounding circumstances demonstrate an intention that their arrangement should have legal consequences.
The Court found that Sheila’s statements that she wanted to “pay her way” and that Bernadette should be “paid properly” went beyond an expression of gratitude or an intention to make a future gift. In the context of the care arrangement that followed, there was sufficient evidence of an intention to create legal relations.
The absence of an agreed price did not prevent a contract from arising. Instead, Bernadette was entitled to a reasonable price for her services under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
The importance of contemporaneous evidence
There was no formal written care agreement. The Court therefore had to determine what had been agreed from the parties’ words, conduct and contemporaneous evidence.
Family WhatsApp messages proved particularly important, providing an extensive record of the circumstances surrounding the arrangement. The decision does not mean families should routinely enter formal contracts when caring for relatives. It does, however, demonstrate the value of recording any understanding about payment. A simple written record can help establish whether payment is intended, how it is to be calculated and when it becomes due.
How much was the care worth?
Having established a contractual entitlement, the Court had to determine a reasonable price for Bernadette’s services. Taking account of the nature and extent of the care provided and commercial care comparators, the Court valued the services at £150 per day. Bernadette was awarded £127,500 for 850 contractual days, together with interest.
Drawing the line
Rogers v Wills does not establish a general right for family carers to receive payment. The outcome depended upon evidence of an actual agreement accompanied by an intention to create legal relations. Providing extensive care alone is not enough.
Its significance extends beyond care arrangements. Families frequently make informal arrangements concerning money, property, loans, businesses and services. Where disputes arise, the Court will look objectively at what was said and done rather than simply assuming that a family arrangement was never intended to be binding.
The practical lesson is straightforward: where payment is genuinely intended, recording that understanding at the time can provide valuable clarity and reduce the risk of later disputes.
