The recent case of Rogers v Wills ([2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch)) highlights a crucial point for anyone providing care to a loved one in the expectation that they will receive remuneration, as opposed to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. This case, heard in the High Court, underscores the complexities that can arise when care is given without a formal written agreement concerning pay.
The Heart of the Matter: Remuneration vs. Expenses
At the core of the dispute was the claimant’s assertion that there was of an agreement with her late mother for remuneration for the care she provided. While the defendant acknowledged that the claimant should not be out of pocket for expenses directly related to Sheila’s care, the question of paid remuneration for the care itself was a different matter entirely.
This distinction is vital: out-of-pocket expenses, such as receipts for groceries or medical supplies, are generally straightforward to claim. However, payment for the time and effort of caregiving, or remuneration, typically requires a prior, explicit agreement. Without such an agreement, a carer often has no legal basis to claim payment for their services, no matter how extensive or dedicated.
Judge’s conclusion
Having reviewed the evidence, the Judge concluded that an agreement for remuneration had existed and he therefore allowed the claim in principle. He also said that the claimant’s claim would also succeed on the principles of unjust enrichment.
This was not the end of the matter. There would need to be a further hearing to decide quantum – the amount due to the claimant.
And he urged the parties to mediate to avoid the cost and emotional burden of further court hearings.
In my judgment, the claimant has established that Sheila agreed to pay her a reasonable price for the care that the claimant provided. If I were wrong about that, Sheila’s estate would be liable to the claimant in unjust enrichment for the value of that care so provided. The second stage of this litigation will deal with the ascertainment of such quantum. However, this is a case which cries out for mediation rather than litigation. It ought to be possible for the parties, in the hands of an experienced mediator, to reach agreement on what is the appropriate amount to represent the liability of Sheila’s estate towards the claimant. In that way, further costly and emotionally wearing court hearings will be avoided.
Other comments made by the Judge
At the very start of his judgement, the Judge was at pains to point out that the court is concerned with the law and not the moral position. This might come as a surprise to some people.
There is another general preliminary point that I must make. It is that this is a court of law, and the court applies the law to the dispute between the parties. That dispute is about whether Sheila’s estate has any liability to the claimant for the care which Sheila received. It is entirely about the legal position of the claimant on the one hand and the defendant (representing Sheila’s estate) on the other. The moral position of any of the parties or their siblings is simply irrelevant. The court does not adjudicate – indeed, is unable to adjudicate – on questions as to whether one sibling has behaved better or worse towards the other siblings or their mother, except insofar as that raises a legal question. Accordingly, nothing that I say in this judgment is intended to reflect directly on the moral position of any of the parties.