Daughter entitled to sums for caring for her late mother prior to death (Rogers v Wills)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Following a trial, a daughter has been held to be entitled to the receipt of substantial sums from the estate of her late mother pursuant to the terms of a contract made with the late mother for the provision of care in her home. Had the contract not existed, the daughter would, in any event, have been entitled to receive such payment on a restitutionary basis.

Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

This judgment casts a sad reflection on siblings who have fallen into a serious dispute following the death of their late mother in relation to the estate left behind. It also demonstrates the wide range of circumstances in which contracts can arise informally in a family context and how narrow the circumstances are in which an argument as to the absence of an intention to create legal relations will succeed. In addition, the judgment shows that unjust enrichment has a potentially significant role in cases in which children of deceased persons provide care for them later in life. Finally, it demonstrates an element of flexibility on the part of the Court in relation to the scope of pleadings. In particular, where an unjust enrichment claim is brought on one restitutionary ground which ultimately fails, the Court was willing to order restitution nonetheless on the basis of an alternative ground which was not (or at least to any significant degree) pleaded.

What was the background?

At the centre of this claim was the late Ursula “Sheila” Wills. Sheila became widowed in 2012. Between September 2017 and her death in April 2020, Sheila was cared for by her eldest child, her daughter, the Claimant, at the Claimant’s home. Pursuant to a will dated 4 December 2015, the Defendant, Sheila’s eldest son and second eldest child, was appointed as executor of her estate. The Claimant argued that Sheila agreed with her that she should be financially compensated for the care she gave to Sheila. That formed the basis of a claim in contract. In addition, she brought an alternative claim in unjust enrichment, on the basis that that Sheila’s estate had been unjustly enriched at her expense as a result of the provision of that care. The Claimant argued that her siblings agreed that she should not only be reimbursed for her out of pocket expenses, but also paid for the care that she supplied to Sheila.

What did the court decide?

The judgment included a significant amount of discussion about the process of trying cases and the distinction between identifying legal entitlement and the passing of moral judgment on the conduct of parties. It appears that this related to the fact that the Claimant had taken a sum of approximately £100,000 from the account of her late mother purportedly by way of payment for the provision of care for Sheila and was prosecuted (albeit acquitted at trial) for theft of that money. In these proceedings, the Court was satisfied that Sheila had capacity to enter into the contract which the Claimant alleged was made in 2017 for compensation for the provision of care and did, in fact, enter into such a contract. In the alternative, the Court indicated that even if such a contract did not exist (either due to a lack of capacity or a lack of intention to create legal relations) the Claimant was entitled to payment in the form of restitution as the estate had been unjustly enriched at her expense by the provision of care to Sheila. Although the restitution claim was presented as a failure of basis and the Court did not accept that unjust enrichment arose on that ground, the Court was content to analyse it as one of free acceptance of benefit or quantum meruit and the alternative unjust enrichment ground would have succeeded on that basis. The Court did not at this stage determine quantum and indicated that further hearings would be required to determine this, though the judgment ended with an encouragement that the parties attempt to mediate that issue rather than incurring additional costs and stress of litigation.

Case details

Court: Business and Property Courts in Bristol

Judge: HHJ Paul Matthews

Date of judgment: 6 June 2025

Article by Phillip Patterson, originally published by LexisNexis here.