Informal Care Agreements: Estate Ordered to Pay Family Member in Rogers v Wills [2025]

The High Court has handed down an important decision in Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch), which could have far-reaching implications for family caregiving arrangements. Traditionally, when someone cares for a family member, the courts assume the support is freely given out of love or duty. But this particular case challenges that view and potentially opens the door to more claims by relatives who have provided care on the understanding they’d be paid.

The background to the case

Bernadette Rogers looked after her mother, Sheila Wills, for the final three years of Sheila’s life. Sheila had ongoing health issues and needed significant day-to-day help. Although the original plan was for Sheila to have live-in carers, she didn’t want that and instead she asked her daughter if she could move into her home with her in Bristol.

Bernadette agreed. And, crucially, so did Sheila, on the understanding that she would “pay her way” and that Bernadette would be “paid properly” for her time and care. However, there was no written agreement or clear amount discussed.

The Claim

When Sheila died, Bernadette inherited an equal share of her mother’s estate alongside her five siblings. But she also brought a claim against the estate, arguing that her years of care weren’t simply acts of kindness. They were services she had agreed to provide, based on her mother’s promise to pay her.

She claimed the arrangement amounted to a contract, or at least that there was a clear expectation of fair payment. The court agreed that this wasn’t a case of informal, unpaid help. Instead, it recognised the care as a service for which Bernadette should be reasonably compensated.

The case was defended

Andrew Wills, Bernadette’s brother and a fellow beneficiary, argued that while Bernadette may have covered some costs, there was never a formal agreement about being paid for her time. In his view, there was no understanding that Bernadette would charge anything like a commercial rate—or be paid at all beyond basic expenses.

What the court decided

The High Court disagreed. It found that there was a clear agreement: Bernadette would care for Sheila, and Sheila would pay her a reasonable amount in return.

Even though they didn’t set out the details in writing, the court said this was enough to amount to a legally binding contract. And even if it wasn’t a contract, the judge said the estate would still owe Bernadette under the principle of unjust enrichment, because Sheila had clearly benefited from the care, and it wouldn’t be fair for the estate to keep that benefit without paying for it.

The court recognised that Bernadette had put her own life and income on hold to look after her mother, and that this went far beyond ordinary family support.

Why the claim was successful

The judge pointed to several key reasons why the claim should succeed:

• Bernadette had provided a clear benefit
• Sheila had accepted that benefit
• Sheila could have declined the offer of care but didn’t
• And most importantly, Sheila knew her daughter expected to be paid

The question of whether Sheila had the capacity to make this kind of agreement also came up. The judge was satisfied she did. Sheila understood what she was agreeing to, had the money to pay, and made it clear she didn’t want to rely on charity—she wanted to be cared for properly, and to pay her way.

What this means for charities

This case might encourage more claims from family members who’ve taken on a caring role, especially if they feel they were promised something in return. And for charities named in a will, that could have a real impact.

If a claim like this succeeds, it reduces what’s left in the estate and that means charities could receive less than expected.

To protect their position, charities should ask for details of any informal care arrangements early on, and take legal advice if they’re concerned about potential claims on an estate.